Ferrel Heady

Comparative and International Public Administration: Building Intellectual Bridges

The Section on International and Comparative Administration (SICA) of the American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) is 25 years old. This is an opportune time both for retrospection and for looking ahead. My purpose, however, is not to undertake a balanced analysis of achievements and shortcomings--I hope others will do that--but to examine closely only one aspect of the history of SICA. In my opinion, SICA has not yet succeeded in its long-standing mission of bringing together comparative and international public administration. The task is a complicated one because the intellectual history of the two subfields has been so different. But there are areas of overlap and problems that would benefit from a more integrated point of view. With a slight reorientation of focus, SICA can facilitate substantive progress in both fields. SICA Origins SICA resulted from the abolition of two earlier ASPA entities and the merger of their functions in a single new one. These were the Comparative Administration Group (CAG) and the International Committee. The Comparative Administration Group had been, since its creation in 1960, the center of action for the comparative administration movement, which flourished for more than a decade under the chairmanship of Fred W. Riggs. The International Committee had been in existence considerably longer, under the leadership of several different chairs (most notably Charles Ascher), with ups and downs in the level of its programs and frequent changes of focus for its activities, but with its most consistent interest being the maintenance of U.S. ties with organizations such as the International Institute of Administrative Sciences. I was chair of this committee when SICA was created. The consolidation presumably assumed that there were advantages to be gained by combining in one place ASPAs interests in comparative and in international administration. The SICA Record SICA has accomplished much over 25 years, but it has not succeeded in bringing its two components together in a meaningful way. In my view, the focus of attention has shifted frequently as occupants of the SICA chair and members of the executive committee have changed, with some having moire of a comparative and some more of an international perspective. Most SICA projects have had either a comparative or an international focus. Few have been deliberately aimed at exploring the current relationships between these two aspects of administrative studies, of at integrating them better. This is what I propose should receive more systematic attention. I am not attempting to assess the multiple contributions of individual members of SICA, either as researchers or practitioners. These contributions have been significant, but they have not been the result of SICA initiatives, and with few exceptions they have not focused on the interconnections between comparative and international administration. Past Subfield Relationships My suggestion for SICAs agenda is the outgrowth of efforts on my part to explore the relationships between the subfields of comparative public administration and international public administration. My initial findings were published several years ago (Heady, 1989) and have been recently updated (Heady, 1998). My conclusion in 1989 was that mi the put these two fields of interest had been dealt with separately rather than mi tandem, and that a gradual convergence of effort would be of benefit to both the comparative and international components of studies in public administration. Since 1989, I have seen little evidence that this convergence is actually taking place. SICA should make bringing the two subfields closer together a major program objective. To understand what needs to be done and why, we need to examine how these two subfields have evolved. International public administration is concerned with the administrative operations of agencies created by sovereign nation-states as instrumentalities for international or regional cooperation. …

American Constitutional and Administrative Systems in Comparative Perspective

Some cautions must be kept in mind when American constitutional and administrative systems are examined from a comparative perspective. The most important is that to a remarkable extent the course of political development in the United States has been influenced by internal rather than external factors. The resulting constitutional and administrative amalgam is a product which is uniquely American, even though it can be traced historically to diverse origins and more recently has furnished a pattern influential in political choices made by other countries scattered around the globe. A focus on comparative aspects means that these indigenous forces can be treated only incidentally, despite their overall significance in shaping American politics. Other contributors to this symposium will be able to concentrate on the impact of such factors as geographical distance from Europe; a colonial population made up largely of individuals who had made a personal choice to cut their ties with the Old World and were determined to resist governmental intrusions affecting their lives; the opportunity to move from frontier to frontier in settling most of a continent; the surge of growth during the American industrial revolution resulting from westward expansion, the influx of immigrants, improved communication and transportation, the spread of manufacturing, and increasing urbanization; and the consequent social and economic crises which demanded governmental responses. 1 Another caveat is that in making comparisons it must be recognized that during the whole course of American history neither the constitutional nor the administrative system has ever been based on the existence of full consensus. Although basic characteristics can be identified, these mask a welter of differences in objectives sought, in understandings as to the intent of choices formally agreed upon, and in subsequent interpretations as to the meaning of these choices. A further complication is that constitutional and administrative systems are dynamic, not static. In the American case, each system existed in embryonic form before taking definite shape, has subsequently gone through a series of changes, and will continue to evolve. To make comparative analysis manageable, it helps to have only a limited number of chronological check-

Institute of Public Administration, University of the Philippines

BOTH the United Nations and the United States technical assistance programs are giving increasing attention to the establishment of training and research centers in public administration. In sponsoring these centers, such as the new Institute of Public Administration in the Philippines, those concerned with project priorities should be commended for supporting some projects with broad, long-term educational objectives rather than only those having immediate impact. American foreign aid administrators, responsible to a Congress restive for early dividends, have not always been so sympathetic toward the idea of establishing public administration centers as at present. The public administration center at the University of the Philippines, being established with the technical cooperation of the University of Michigan and with financial support of the United States and Philippine governments, must perhaps be justified on faith at this point. Because of its long-term potential rather than prospective short-run returns, the new Institute of Public Administration in Manila is a

Comparative Program-Performance Evaluation and Government Accountability in New Mexico—Some Applied Lessons for Intergovernmental Relations

Abstract In Strategies for Using State Information: Measuring and Improving Program Performance (2003), Shelley Metzenbaum poses a series of “key questions” about the federal-state performance reporting relationship. Metzenbaum asks whether there should be a uniform accountability system across the American states and whether it should be required of the states by the federal government. Ancillary questions include what uses should be made of state performance information and whether federal agencies should publicy report such information. These questions are important in light of the burgeoning performancemanagement movement in contemporary public administration. The extension of performance measurement and reporting systems to state governments is largely due to the impact on states of the federal Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), and generally to the ascendancy of new public management perspectives in governmental practice. The experience of the State of New Mexico with regard to intergovernmental performance reporting in recent years, under both Republican and Democratic gubernatorial administrations, suggests that closer integration of federal and state performance reporting is necessary, that more comprehensive performancebased systems (that include comparative performance measurement and strategic planning frameworks) are essential, and that new evaluative models are needed to address the sometimes cooperative and sometimes adversarial nature of intergovernmental relations. Lessons from the MPA classroom arising from these interrelated concerns and from the authors’ applied research with state government are addressed at the conclusion of this study.