No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 July 2011
The growing role of governmental bureaucracy has been one of the most noted and discussed characteristics of developing political systems. The phenomenon of bureaucratic intervention in politics, already discernible in the 1950's in many of these states, has, so it seems, become the rule rather than the exception in the years that have followed. Despite the prevalence of the politicized bureaucracy, however, and the amount of discussion engendered by the phenomenon, die sources of bureaucratic growth and dominance in the developing states remain obscure. Most analysts emphasize the superior organization of the bureaucracy and argue that this organization, reinforced by die transfer of techniques from abroad and uncontested because of weak indigenous political institutions, provides much of the explanation for the aggrandizement of the bureaucracy in die policy-making process.
1 For examples of this argument, see Joseph LaPalombara, “Bureaucracy and Political Development: Notes, Queries, Dilemmas,” S. N. Eisenstadt, “Bureaucracy and Political Development,” and Riggs, Fred W., “Bureaucracy and Political Development,” all in LaPalombara, Joseph, ed., Bureaucracy and Political Development (Princeton 1963).Google Scholar
2 Ibid., 117, 126–29.
3 The bureaucratic model is discussed in Waldo, Dwight, Comparative Public Administration: Prologue, Problems, and Promise (Chicago 1964).Google Scholar
4 See, for example, Ralph Braibanti, “Public Bureaucracy and Judiciary in Pakistan,” in LaPalombara (fn. I), 379.
5 Zolberg, Aristide, Creating Political Order (Chicago 1966).Google Scholar
6 Bienen, Henry, Tanzania: Party Transformation and Economic Development (Princeton 1970).Google Scholar
7 Ibid., 452.
8 Ibid., 147–51; Tordoff, William, “Regional Administration in Tanzania,” Journal of Modern African Studies, III (May 1965), 63–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rweyemanu, Anthony H., “Managing Planned Development: Tanzania's Experience,” Journal of Modern African Studies, IV (May 1966), 9.Google Scholar
9 Riggs, Fred W., Administration in Developing Countries (Boston 1964).Google Scholar
10 Ibid., 227.
11 See, in particular, Riggs, Fred W., “Bureaucratic Politics in Comparative Perspec tive,” in Riggs, , ed., Frontiers of Development Administration (Durham, N.C. 1970), 375–414.Google Scholar
12 For the most recent discussions on this topic, see ibid.; also, Braibanti, Ralph and others, eds., Political and Administrative Development (Durham, N.C. 1969)Google Scholar; Waldo, Dwight, ed., Temporal Dimensions of Development Administration (Durham, N.C. 1970)Google Scholar; Weidner, Edward W., ed., Development Administration in Asia (Durham, N.C. 1970).Google Scholar
13 For an example of this argument, see Goodnow, Henry, The Civil Service of Pakistan (Princeton 1964), 91–96.Google Scholar
14 The “machine model,” and its utility for understanding political parties in developing political systems, is briefly explored in Bienen (fn. 6).
15 Sayeed, Khalid Bin, “The Political Role of Pakistan's Civil Service,” Pacific Affairs, XXXI (June 1958), 131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16 Riggs (fn. 1), 128.