MODULE II

IMPERATIVES, NATURE AND

STRATEGIES OF COMPARISON

by: Ms. Beverly B. Laltoog

Lesson 1: Imperatives and History of Comparative Public and
z Local Government Administration

The study of comparative public and local government administration

traces its roots back to ancient times and has evolved significantly over
centuries. This lesson explores the imperatives driving comparative
studies and its historical development up to contemporary times.
 z for Comparative Study
Imperatives

 Comparative analysis is ingrained in human nature through everyday experiences of

observing and evaluating similarities and differences among people, objects, and
systems. In the realm of science, particularly in politics and public administration,
comparative study serves several crucial purposes:

• Scientific Approach: Comparative study aims to understand and explain phenomena

through systematic observation and analysis of factual data. By comparing similar
variables and noting variations, scholars can formulate valid generalizations and
theories.

• Understanding Administrative Behavior: It provides insights into how administrative

practices vary across different political systems and cultural contexts. This
understanding helps in assessing efficiency, adherence to laws, and governance
principles like accountability and corruption.
 z
Historical development before WWIl

 Ancient Foundations by Aristotle: Comparative study in politics and

local government administration traces its roots back to Aristotle in 4 B.C.
Aristotle's curiosity about governmental systems in different lands led him
to categorize political systems based on their characteristics, laying
foundational principles for comparative political analysis
 z

No of person who In whose interest

rules power is exercised

1. All All (Collective/ Anarchy Themselves

(Collective/Anarchy) Monarchy) (sectional) or more
Aristocracy polity Tyranny kinship
2.Many/representative Oligarchy
Democracy or mob rule

Figure 1. Aristotle's classification scheme

 Growth in zthe Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries: Between 1895 and 1920,
comparative research in public and local government administration gained momentum.
Max Weber, a prominent German sociologist, played a crucial role during this period by
advancing the sophistication and scope of comparative political and administrative
studies.

Development from the End of WWII

 After World War II, the center of comparative studies shifted from Europe to the United
States. This shift was fueled by increased interest from organizations like the American
Political Science Association and the Society for Public Administration. Technical
assistance programs by the US, UN, and private foundations also contributed by
exposing scholars and practitioners to diverse political systems worldwide, stimulating
comparative research.
 This movement emphasized scientific methodologies for studying administration,
including rigorous observation, data collection techniques, hypothesis testing, and
generalization.
Development in Contemporary Times
z
 Formation of Comparative Administrative Groups: In the 1960s, the
Comparative Administrative Group (CAG) was established, marking a
significant step towards developing universally accepted theories of
public and local government administration through comparative study.
Scholars like Fred Riggs contributed theories such as the "theory of
prismatic society," which examined non-Western institutions combining
legal-rational forms with traditional practices.

 Global Expansion of Comparative Studies: Scholarly interest in

comparative studies expanded globally from the 1960s to 1975, reaching
regions beyond Europe and America to the Middle East, Asia, Africa, and
Latin America. This period saw a proliferation of publications and
academic discourse on comparative public and local government
administration, further consolidating its scientific basis.
 z

 Impact of Globalization and Technological Advancements: The

contemporary era has seen comparative research benefit from
globalization and advancements in information technology. The ease of
accessing cross-national administrative data via the internet and mobile
communication has revolutionized comparative research
methodologies, providing scholars with advanced tools for analysis.
 Nature,
z Utility, and Problems of Comparative
Public and Local Government Administration

 Nature of Comparative Local Government Administration

1. Scientific Approach: Comparative local government administration aims to build

and test propositions about administration across different political systems and
environments. This scientific approach seeks to generate verifiable generalized
statements that can contribute to the theoretical and empirical foundations of local
government practices.

2. Development of Universal Theories: Scholars in this field strive to develop

universal theories of local government that are applicable across diverse cultures
and political environments. This involves analyzing and theorizing about local
government practices in various political settings to uncover common principles
and effective administrative practices.
 z
Utility of Comparative Local Government Administration

1. Enhanced Understanding: Comparative studies enhance the understanding of local

government beyond national boundaries. By comparing practices across countries,
scholars, analysts, and practitioners gain insights into the factors influencing local
government efficiency and effectiveness. These factors include political systems,
cultural norms, economic conditions, educational levels, and other variables.

2. Understanding Administrative Behavior: Another utility is the insight gained into the
behavior of bureaucrats and political officials across different countries. Comparative
studies reveal differences in administrative behavior shaped by political contexts,
providing valuable knowledge that can prevent misunderstandings or missteps when
operating in unfamiliar political or cultural environments.
 Problems in Comparative Local Government Administration
z

1. Access to Data: One major challenge is the varying levels of openness in different
countries. Liberal democracies often provide greater access to data, including
sensitive information related to security and defense, facilitating comprehensive
comparative research. In contrast, closed societies, such as authoritarian regimes
or former socialist states, restrict access to crucial data, sometimes equating such
inquiries with espionage or sabotage, punishable by severe penalties.

2. Technological Disparities: Disparities in technological infrastructure also pose

challenges. Developed countries benefit from advanced information technologies
and reliable communication systems, enabling extensive data collection without
physical presence in other countries. In contrast, many third-world countries lack
such infrastructure, hindering effective data collection and internet-based research
practices.
 z

3. Regime Types: The political regime of a country significantly influences the

accessibility of information. Democratic regimes generally afford researchers more
freedom to conduct investigations, access official documents, and conduct interviews.
In contrast, authoritarian regimes tightly control information flow, viewing external
inquiries with suspicion and potentially labeling researchers as spies or opposition
agents.

4. Behavioral and Political Instability: The unpredictable nature of political leaders

and bureaucratic officials complicates comparative studies. Political instability and
frequent changes in administrative structures within countries like Nigeria illustrate the
challenges of studying and predicting administrative behavior in volatile political
environments.
 z Lesson 3: Differences and Similarities of Strategies in
Comparative Local Government

 Strategies in comparative public and local government

administration focus on the various methodologies
used to analyze and compare different systems. This
lesson explores the differences and similarities in
these strategies, emphasizing the methods of
experimental, statistical, and case study approaches.
 z
Differences Approach

 The differences approach acknowledges the apparent distinctions between people,

objects, institutions, or practices. It recognizes that while there may be significant
differences, there are also underlying similarities, no matter how subtle or infrequent
these similarities may appear. For example:

• Administrative Behavior: In Western and Japanese local government

administrations, there may be differences in attitudes toward corruption and office
abuse. However, both adhere to bureaucratic principles with hierarchical structures
and shared rules and regulations.

• Political Systems: Despite variations in corruption levels between political officials in

different systems, the fundamental structures of governance share common elements
across diverse cultures.
Similaritiesz Approach

 Contrary to the differences approach, the similarities approach focuses on identifying

commonalities among apparently similar entities. It acknowledges that while two
entities may appear identical at first glance, there are nuanced differences upon closer
inspection. For instance:

• Identical Twins: Although identical twins may appear indistinguishable to casual

observers, subtle differences such as a small birthmark or slight height variation
distinguish them from each other.

• Democratic Systems: While the United States and the Philippines both practice
democratic administration, differences in the age of their democratic traditions and
specific institutional practices set them apart.

 The similarities approach underscores the idea that no two entities, whether people,
systems, or practices, are entirely identical. It emphasizes understanding and
appreciating the nuances that differentiate apparently similar entities.
 z
Lesson 4: Experimental, Statistical, and
Case Study Strategies of Comparative Local
Government

 In this lesson, we delve into three key strategies used

in comparative local government studies: the
experimental approach, the statistical approach, and
the case study approach. Each method offers unique
perspectives and methodologies to understand and
analyze local government systems.
 z A. The Experimental Approach

 The experimental approach aims to establish causal relationships through controlled

experiments. Here's how it works:

• Experimental and Control Groups: This method involves creating two groups—a
control group and an experimental group. The experimental group is exposed to a
specific stimulus or intervention (independent variable), while the control group is
not.

• Observation and Comparison: Both groups are observed to measure the effects of
the stimulus on the experimental group compared to the control group, which
remains unchanged. For example, studying the effects of alcohol consumption by
comparing a group that drinks alcohol with a group that does not.

• Limitations: Human behavior can be unpredictable due to emotional and ethical

factors, which can impact the reliability of experimental results.
 B. The Statistical Approach
z
 The statistical approach focuses on analyzing empirical data to identify relationships
between variables:

• Partial Correlation: This technique examines the relationship between variables

while controlling for other factors that may influence the results. For example, studying
the correlation between political participation and education level while considering
the impact of age differences.

• Purpose: Unlike experiments, statistical methods do not manipulate variables but

instead analyze existing data to understand relationships and draw conclusions based
on statistical significance.

• Comparison with Experimental Approach: While both statistical and experimental

methods share a scientific approach, statistical analysis lacks the controlled
environment that experiments provide.
 C. The Case Study Approach
z

 The case study approach examines specific instances in detail to draw broader
conclusions:

• Types of Case Studies:

• Descriptive Case Study: Focuses on describing the attributes and characteristics of a
particular case without seeking to explain causation.
• Theoretical Case Study: Provides an in-depth analysis of a case to explore theoretical
concepts and implications.
• Hypothesis-Generating Case Study: Aims to formulate general propositions that can
lead to theory-building, starting with basic assumptions tested through data collection.

• Value: Case studies allow for comprehensive examination of specific cases,

offering insights that can contribute to theory-building and generalizations
applicable to broader contexts.