Fred Riggs, a political scientist, developed the “Ecological Approach” in the field of public administration. This approach focuses on the interaction between administrative systems and their external environment, emphasizing the importance of adapting administrative structures to the specific cultural, social, and political contexts in which they operate.
Introduction – What is Ecological Approach?
Administration does not operate in isolation but is influenced by and influences its environment. Understanding the dynamics of this interaction is essential for comprehending administration, and this understanding is achieved through the ecological approach. The ecological approach, borrowed from biology, focuses on studying the interrelationship between organisms and their environment. In the context of public administration, it involves examining the interplay between administrative systems and their physical and social surroundings to achieve a balance for survival.
To grasp the ecology of public administration, which encompasses the interaction between administration and its environment, it is crucial to have an understanding of society and the various factors that impact its functioning.
The ecological approach in the study of public administration was initially introduced by J.M. Gaus, Robert A. Dahl, and Robert A. Merton, but Fred W. Riggs made a significant contribution to this approach based on his extensive studies in Thailand, the Philippines, and India. Riggs analyzed the relationship between administration and economic, social, technological, political, and communication factors from a broad perspective while studying the administrative systems of developing societies. He provided illustrations to demonstrate how environmental conditions influence administrative systems based on his studies in Thailand and the Philippines.
Fred Riggs raised questions about the applicability of Western organizational theories to developing countries and emphasized that each society has unique characteristics that influence the functioning of its subsystems. He observed that most Western theories focus on internal aspects of the system while neglecting the broader socio-economic environment. Riggs highlighted the differences between Western developed countries and Third World countries, where the socio-economic environment varies significantly. Therefore, theories or models developed for developed countries may not be applicable to the administrative systems of Third World countries. Fred Riggs’ findings are considered a significant contribution to understanding administrative systems in the Third World, as he expanded the analytical framework for examining these systems based on his observations.
The ecological approach adopts a systems perspective, treating phenomena as integrated wholes composed of interdependent parts. Rather than focusing narrowly on a single aspect of society, the ecological approach takes a holistic view of the organization. Fred Riggs categorized macro-level systems and attempted to apply these categories to micro subsystems like administration.
Table of Contents
Division of Global System into Three Types
Fred Riggs used global systems as a reference point for his categorization and developed three ideal models (Fused, Prismatic, and Diffracted) to explain societal changes in transitional societies. These ideal models are hypothetical assumptions aimed at analyzing pre-historic, developing, and developed societies.
Fused Model – Imperial China and Siamese Thailand
Fred Riggs examined Imperial China and pre-revolutionary Siamese Thailand as examples of the fused model. These societies lacked functional differentiation, where a single structure performed all functions. They heavily relied on agriculture and had no industrialization or modernization. The King and the officials appointed by the King personally carried out administrative, economic, and other activities. There were no separate structures for managing economic and administrative affairs. The relationship between the government and the people was generally weak. People showed respect to the King by offering services and material goods without expecting anything in return. The government was not accountable to the people, although the public was obligated to obey government commands. Consequently, the administration in these societies focused on protecting the interests of the ruling family and specific sects rather than pursuing universal happiness and development.
The administrative system was based on the structure of the family and certain sects, serving to preserve the system. These societies tended to be static, lacking developed communication systems. The people had no demands and rarely raised issues with the government. The King and his appointees enjoyed absolute power, often using it to safeguard their personal interests. These societies did not distinguish between formal and informal setups or between governmental and non-governmental activities.
Traditional values played a dominant role, and people’s behavior was highly traditional. Long-standing customs, beliefs, faith, and traditional ways of living allowed people to live together and regulate their behavior.
Diffracted Model – American Society
These societies operated based on universalistic principles with equal treatment for all. There was a high degree of specialization, with each structure performing specialized functions. Ascriptive values diminished, making way for attainment values in the society. The society was highly dynamic and diffracted. Open class structures represented by various associations played a significant role in achieving rational outcomes. All organizations and structures in society were created and based on scientific reasoning. The economic system relied on market mechanisms, and the market’s influence had direct and indirect effects on other aspects of society. Riggs referred to it as a marketized economy.
Various associations fulfilled different functions. Communication and technology were highly advanced, and governments prioritized maintaining positive public relations. The government was responsive to people’s needs and protected human rights. People exerted pressure on the government to get their demands met and had a significant influence on its behavior. Government officials did not possess absolute power. The public willingly adhered to national laws, facilitating the government’s implementation of laws and discharge of responsibilities without difficulty. There was a general consensus among the people on fundamental aspects of social life.
Prismatic Model – Third World Countries
The prismatic society is an intermediate society between the fused and diffracted models. Riggs utilized the fused and diffracted models to explain the prismatic phenomena observed in developing countries. According to Riggs, the prismatic society possesses three important characteristics: heterogeneity, formalism, and overlapping.
Heterogeneity
The primary characteristic of a prismatic society is the presence of a significant degree of heterogeneity. Heterogeneity refers to the simultaneous coexistence of different systems, practices, and viewpoints. In a prismatic society, social change is inconsistent, incomplete, and unresponsive due to the parallel existence of opposing practices and viewpoints. Heterogeneity also influences the administrative system.
In a prismatic society, there are urban areas with sophisticated intellectual classes, modern offices, and advanced administrative tools. There is a well-developed communication system, skyscrapers, and specialized agencies responsible for various social, political, economic, and technical services. On the other hand, rural areas maintain a highly traditional lifestyle with limited access to modern amenities like telephones and refrigerators. Village elders take on multiple roles in politics, administration, society, economy, and religion. Heterogeneity permeates all aspects of life in a prismatic society, creating a paradoxical situation. Education emphasizes Western-style education while preserving traditional Gurukuls. Modern hospitals providing allopathic treatment coexist with Ayurvedic, Unani, Homeopathic, and Naturopathic centers. The coexistence of contrasting systems pulling society in different directions makes generalizations difficult.
In prismatic societies, political and administrative positions hold significant influence, power, and prestige, which can be leveraged for personal gain. While equal opportunities exist for all, only a privileged few aspire to secure high-ranking positions. Those who are unsuccessful in obtaining such positions may form pressure groups against the government and initiate protests on various pretexts. Although elected through democratic processes, the government may struggle to control the population. The ruling class often prioritizes protecting their own interests and clinging to power. Consequently, misunderstandings, misrepresentations, tensions, and instability can arise in society. These disparities and differentiations in various aspects of life not only influence the functioning of the administrative system and shape its behavior but also create numerous problems for governance.
The ruling class tends to protect the interests of the privileged while neglecting the interests of the underprivileged, potentially leading to conditions conducive to revolutionary movements in society.
Formalism
Formalism refers to the extent of discrepancy between prescribed norms and actual practices, the disparity between stated objectives and real performance, and the existence of a gap between formal rules and their effective implementation in government and society. A higher degree of formalism characterizes prismatic societies compared to fused and diffracted societies.
In a prismatic society, there are often deviations in the behavior of government officials from the prescribed rules, regulations, and formal norms. Officers sometimes adhere to the rules, while at other times, they overlook or even violate them.
Fred Riggs also considered constitutional formalism, which refers to the gap between constitutional provisions and their actual implementation. For example, in India, while the constitutional practice dictates that Chief Ministers should be elected by members of the majority party in the State Assembly and that the Chief Minister should select the Council of Ministers, in practice, central party leadership often plays a decisive role in their selection. The Constitution legally entrusts governance to elected representatives, but in reality, the real power and influence may lie with individuals or groups outside the Parliament. The Constitution assigns the responsibility of lawmaking to legislators, but in practice, they often spend little time on lawmaking and may be more engaged in power politics. This situation empowers the bureaucracy in prismatic societies to play a significant role in lawmaking.
Overlapping
‘Overlapping’ refers to the coexistence of formally differentiated structures of a diffracted society with undifferentiated structures characteristic of a fused society. Overlapping shows that differentiated structures [clubs] coexist with undifferentiated structures [Sects]. This denotes overlapping of administrative behaviour of both the societies. Riggs called these elements as “CLECTS” (club + sects) i.e. social system.
In a prismatic society, although new or modern social structures are established, the old or undifferentiated structures continue to dominate the social system. While new norms and values associated with diffracted structures may receive formal recognition, they are often disregarded in favor of traditional values associated with fused societies. In a prismatic society, institutions such as Parliament, government offices, markets, and schools perform various administrative, political, and economic functions. However, their behavior is often influenced by traditional organizations like the family, religion, and caste.
Prismatic Sala Model
Fred Riggs used the term “sala model” to describe the administrative subsystem in a prismatic society. In this model, family politics, nepotism, and favoritism play significant roles in appointments and the functioning of the administrative structure. There is a disregard for universal laws, and sala officers prioritize personal gain in power and wealth over social welfare. This allegiance to power politics leads to biased decision-making at the government level. Additionally, the presence of multiple communities further complicates administrative problems. As a result, the sala model is characterized by nepotism in recruitment, institutionalized corruption, and inefficiency in law enforcement due to a focus on protecting personal interests.
Bazaar Canteen Model
The bazaar canteen model represents the economic subsystem in a prismatic society, which is also influenced by nepotism, power politics, and favoritism, affecting the dynamics of the market. In this model, the price of commodities or services depends on family connections, individual relationships, bargaining power, and political factors. A small section of the population may enjoy all the benefits and control economic institutions, while a large number of people are exploited. Exploitation, poverty, and social injustice are prevalent features of the bazaar canteen model.
Limitations and Criticisms
While Riggs’s ecological approach offers valuable insights into the dynamics of administrative systems, it is not without its limitations and criticisms. Some scholars argue that the approach tends to neglect the agency and autonomy of administrators, as it places significant emphasis on external factors and constraints. Others contend that Riggs’s framework lacks a clear methodology for empirical analysis and is more descriptive than prescriptive. Additionally, the ecological approach has been criticized for its limited attention to issues of power, inequality, and social justice within administrative systems.
Relevance to Contemporary Administrative Theory and Practice
Despite its limitations, Riggs’s ecological approach continues to be relevant in contemporary administrative theory and practice. The emphasis on the interdependence between administrative systems and their environment aligns with current discourses on sustainability, resilience, and systems thinking. The ecological approach reminds us of the importance of considering the broader context in which administrative decisions are made and the potential impacts on social, economic, and ecological systems. It also underscores the need for adaptive and context-specific approaches to administrative reform and development.
Conclusion
Fred Riggs’s ecological approach provides a valuable perspective on the study of administrative systems. By recognizing the interdependence and interconnectedness of administrative systems within their broader socio-cultural and environmental contexts, Riggs offers a holistic framework for understanding administrative dynamics. The concepts of the ecological complex, cultural systems, and administrative development contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of administrative theory and practice. Despite its limitations, Riggs’s ecological approach remains relevant and serves as a foundation for further exploration and analysis in the field of public administration.
Read More:
