Gist of Important Articles from IIPA Journal: Socio logical Theory & Concepts in Public Administration by A.P. Barnadas
Gist of Important Articles from IIPA Journal
Sociological Theory & Concepts in Public Administration by A.P. Barnadas
Introduction
The three approaches’ to the study of society in Sociology are- structure; function, interaction and conflict “Functionalism” is referred as an “integration theory”. It regards society as a structure of mutually interrelated parts which are sustained by mechanisms and which provide for, equilibrium: Various’ parts of the society are understood primarily in terms of relationship to the whole. Social order social stability, inter-dependence division of labour are same aspects of structure functionalist approach. It also maintains, that social institutions’ serve functions, which are essential for the survival of existing systems. Smelser suggest that the following aspects are central ideas of the theory.
- Institutions serve purpose as the on-going society effort to guarantee that its main goals are realised.
- Institutions manifest a strain towards consistency, e.g. the contours of a higher education shaped by the functional needs or higher technology service based economy.
- Strains and contradictions in institutional life set up by equilibrating g process that change these institutions in adaptive direction.
- A principal from of change in developing societies is structural differentiation. Van Dev Berghe feels that the following elements are involved in the structure function approach:
- Societies must be looked at holistically as systems of inter- related Parts, Hence the causation’ is multiple and reciprocal. Social. Systems are in state of dynamic equilibrium, the dominant tendency is towards stabilizing and inertia.
- Change generally occurs’ in a gradual adjusticive factor-not in a sudden revolutionary way.
- Changes tome from basically three sources: adjustment of the system, exogenous growth through structural functional growth and inventions or innovations by members and group within society.
- The most important and basic factor making for social integration is value consensus.
Conflict Theory
Some Sociologists believe that conflict is pervasive in all societies. It is considered intrinsic to any social organisation in which there are accepted differences in authority between groups. There is reference to exogenous and endogenous conflicts the former refers to conflict brought-in by an outside force which may integrate the society inflicted upon (e.g. invasion or war may get the whole society together). The latter refers to conflicts within society. Most conflict theories derive from a Marxian perceptive which involves the analysis of the infrastructure, There is a basic contradiction between forces and relations of production. Exploitation and oppression by the ruling class, which will lead to disintegration of society:
Though Marx view still dominates the conflict theory there are some other views-too. There is a suggestion that main agency of domination is post- industrial capitalism, not as in classical Marxian sense but rather as technical administrative state based on instrumental rationalities. Thus the state is the oppressor. There is also reference to new movements-environmental, antinuclear antiwar, women, social, ethnic. Their movements are not class based but often arise out of social policies and-bureaucratic intervention:
Some refer to the dependency theory, which suggests that not only is their conflict between the donor and the recipient, but also between those who can manipulate the receipts from the donors to the disadvantage of others in society.
While the two theories briefly stated tend to be universal the interaction theory is to be seen more in terms of middle range theories. Symbolic interaction refers to the peculiar distinctive character as takes place between human beings. Interactions is to examine how individuals direct their action at each other. The assumption being that action is meaningful to individuals who are in interaction. The need is to provide an interpretation of the meaning that individuals attach to their activities. Blumer says that actors do not simply react to each other’s action but define each other’s action. An action is not immediate but rather based on an assessment of the meaning of the act.
Public administration, to prove a meaningful approach to administration and governance, needs to look at the analysis of society. If equilibrium is the main factor in social relations, how does public administration suggest- that changes and innovations can be part of the administrative process. Part of the difficulty is that the administrative system ‘is a part of the social system. The need for reforms in the administrative set up is to rise above itself. The society in India is fall of conflicts caste, class, region, language, religion etc.
There exists a conflict between citizens and the administrators. Research studies have indicated alienation between the two.
For good governance, there is a need to analyse factors causing conflict-so as to formulate policies which can provide stability. Dependency theory has implications for public administration. The interact ion theory provides insight into human behaviour which administration needs to understand.
Bureaucracy
One of the basic’ concepts in the discipline of public administration is bureaucracy. The idea and the nature of bureaucracy was propounded by Max Weber-a major figure in the field of Sociology, Some form of bureaucracy is operational in almost all societies-an administrative-system exists whatever the form of government monarchial despotic communist or democratic. China in a sense provided the idea of a bureaucracy system. Weber defines bureaucracy as “a hierarchical organization designed rationally to co-ordinate the work of many individuals in the pursuit of large scale administrative tasks and organizational goals”. He maintained that to appreciate modem society understanding the process of bureaucratization was essential as department of states, political parties military business organizations, church, educational institutions have a bureaucratic structure.
Weber constructed an ‘ideal’ type of bureaucracy with various characteristics. These include (i) Each official has a clearly defined area of responsibility; (ii) there are abstract rules according to which bureaucracy functions. The rules lay down fixed procedures. which allows for little discretion; (iii) there is a-systematic division of labour power, responsibility defined by administrative regulation; (iv) officials are appointed on the basis of technical knowledge. “Bureaucratic administration means fundamentally the exercise of control on the basis of knowledge”. This is the feature which makes it rational (v) strict separation of official and private income (vi) bureaucratic service constitutes a career.
The bureaucratic system in India is patterned on the classical or ideal structure of Weber. The system of recruitment is based on technical knowledge. There is a clearly defined hierarchy. Decisions are based on rules and precedents (lf there are no precedents, officials seem lost!) Responsibilities are defined: The bureaucratic service does constitute a career.
Whether this type of structure is functional in the contemporary Indian context could be looked at both by sociologists and those in the discipline of public administration. There are suggestions for reforms, but little has happened. Weber was concerned about the administration. Merton talks of goal displacement which could made it dysfunctional to the organisation and for the individual. Other sociologists who have discussed bureaucracy are Etzoni, Gouldner, and Peter Blau, They all critically comment on the Weberian model.
Authority
Another concept which Weber referred to is relevant for both disciplines authority. Authority is the basic of governance. A distinction is made between social authority and political power. Weber refers to three types of authority-charismatic, traditional, and rational/legal.
Charismatic authority belongs to those who are considered exceptional, even including supernatural powers. Traditional authority is based on accepted customs and traditions. The basic of those in authority is their traditional status which is usually inherited. In the rational/legal basics, those who posses authority are able to issue commands and have been obeyed because others accept the legal framework which support their authority. To Weber bureaucratic authority was rational/legal. It is so in India as well as in most countries which have a bureaucratic structure.
Durkhlem refers to moral authority. He also felt than authority was plural-manifest in diverse spheres of kinship, local community, professional club, labour unions as well as political by Weber.
Both, the disciplines need to consider the forms of authority and classify them so as to determine how relevant is the framework suggested by Weber.
Mahatma Gandhi could be considered Charismatic may be having moral authority. Pandit Nehru and charisma but as Prime Minister, he had rational/legal authority. How do we consider the authority/power exercised by a Vajpai a Laloo Prasad Yadav, a Mayawati, a Jayaialitha or a Bal Thackray? In the business world traditional authority seems to be operational. For Tata, Birlas, Ambanis etc. authority is at last partially inherited. In the rural areas tradition does play a role in the leadership patterns, caste, economic status; gender etc; What is the interaction between those who have rational/legal authority and those who have authority because of tradition or charisma. How is governance affected by these factors. As mentioned earlier, there is scope for a critical analysis of the authority as operated in the Indian context in both disciplines-sociology and public administration.
Power
Closely related to the concept of authority is the concept power. Power refers to the degree upto which individuals and organisations can impose their will with or without the consent of others. Power also refers to the relation the power of bureaucracy. Both disciplines are concerned with relation of ideology and power. Is elite theory and aspect of conservative ideology. Who holds power in a representative government, based on democratic ideology? How much power do people have in a democracy? Studies indicate alimentation between citizens, administrators and those in political power. Marxist view is clearly based on ideology. He considered political powers as an organised power of one class for oppressing another, which would dissapctol when the production gets concentrated into the hands of the preliterate. This to him was the basis of political equality and an egalitarian society. While both disciplines refer of power their analysis is rather limited a particular degree at relation between authority, power and ideology.
Organisation
Organisation the concept is an integral part of both the disciplines. The major reference to organisation is that of William Whyte who mentions that belongingness and togetherness necessitate individuals to be a part of a group. Etzoni defines organisation as Social units which are predominantly oriented to attainment of specific goals: Barnard refers to it as a system of coordinated activities or forces of two or more persons, while sociologists emphasise belongingness, the discipline of public administration is concerned with attainment of goals through organisation: How do organisations keep going? Weber refers to compliance through bureaucratic rules. Regularities in activities such as task allocation supervision and coordination. Whyte defers, to “Social ethic” which holds that an individual is meaningless by himself, but that ‘being absorbed into the group; he can create a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. He feels that man wants not merely to be a part hut to immerse himself in it. These are positive aspects of organisation. There are negative aspects as well. Whyte is aware that organisation may suppress individual imagination. Individuals may also strive for adjustments without realizing what ‘the adjustment is for. Whyte further states that organisation could be dysfunctional and so organisation man must fight organisation, to accept the conflict between himself and society. Merton expresses similar views about bureaucratic organisation.
Bureaucracy is considered as a social organisation a part of the social system in sociology. The public administration considers bureaucracy as an instrument achieving goals - implementation of policies. In view of the differences of the disciplines, there is scope for fruitful discussion on the approach to the study of organisation between them.
Planning
POSDCORB is a key word in·”Public Administration”. P stands for Planning (0 for organisation, which the article has already discussed). There are differences on the way planning is looked at in sociology and public administration. Planning in sociology is viewed more into global terms whereas in public administration it refers to the process by which policy and programmes get implemented. Not many sociologists have discussed the concept of Planning. Karl Mannheirn is one of the few who has dealt extensively with planning. This was due to for situation of his country-Germany, after World War II. There was need for reconstruction of the society. According to him, the new social order would need the application of social techniques - the process of planning. He believed in the inevitability of Planning. He expressed his idea of planning as follows: “our plan is to build a social system by planning but planning of a special kind, It must be planning for freedom subjected to democratic control but not restrictionist so as to favour group monopolies either of entrepreneurs or workers association, but planning for plenty, i.e. full employment and full exploitation”, Planning for social justice rather than absolute equality. Planning not for classless society but one that abolishes extremes of wealth and poverty, Planning for balance ·between centralisation and dispersion of power, planning for gradual transformation of society.
Mannheim was concerned with overcoming the impact of Nazi rule in Germany, His concern for democracy, and gradual transformation has to be seen in that light. A question also comes up as planning as such is related to an ideology. Capitalism’ is not particularly in favour of planning.
If one analyses the process of planning, in India the, objectives and the process are very much in keeping with’ ideas, expressed by Mannheim. It is democratic: Its objectives include distributive justice self-reliance, self-sufficiency, reduction of gap between the rich and the poor decentralization of the planning process, increased employment, and gradual social change. The sociologists could look at the ideology, their objectives of planning while public administration could discuss how operational the plans has ‘been at the ground revel.
Conclusion
The article though not exhaustive, is an attempt to initiate a study of the interface between sociology and public administration, It is an effort to sensitise the sociologists to world beyond, caste, family, pattern variables to deeper study of administrative process bureaucracy and planning public administration is multi disciplined, Sociology has more to contribute to public administration than to any of the other social sciences, hence the need for those in public administration to study the insights that sociology provides to critically understand the administrative process and governance. Such an approach would enrich both disciplines.