Content area
Full Text
ABSTRACT
T. Parsons once said that sociologists all critique Max Weber, but no one can do social research independently and scientifically without referring to Weber's theories. By the same token, those who study comparative public administration will inevitably find reason to critique Fred W. Riggs' "fused-prismatic-diffracted model", but in conducting research, no one is free of Riggs' influence.
From the perspectives of heterogeneity, overlapping, formalism, and social transformation, the model observes particular characteristics in prismatic society. Even though the theory behind it needs refinement, it has exerted tremendous influence on the understanding of public administration and organizational behavior. This paper's general critique of Riggs' theory is organized as follows: (1) achievements and contributions, and (2) limitations and discussion.
INTRODUCTION
Fred W. Riggs, as one of the leading scholars on public administration in contemporary America, is considered the authority with exceptional creativity and of great theory in the field of comparative study of public administration. From the very beginning, Riggs made a great effort in searching for an objective and effective model for analyzing public administration in developing regions. He is definitely an energetic pioneer in research methodology, as evident by the "Pan-disciplinary approach" he came up with in the book "Public Administration in Developing Countries" published in 1964. Among other, Riggs' most significant contribution was to create the administration model-the fused-prismatic-diffracted model. The model covers a wide range of research, for instance, economic life, social structures, political symbols, and the allocation of power are all part of the analysis of structural function. Moreover, the model can be applied in modern, traditional, developing and semi-developed economies. Riggs has consistently put a particular emphasis on the linkage between public administration and its environment, and therefore advocated the concept that the administrative behavior in a given society must be understood in the context of the social background instead of the administration itself. Given that the administrative culture is only a subculture of the general social system, public administration can only be understood from the aspects of the ecological background which creates such an administration.
Those are the essential points of his theory. There are some imperfections in the theory which require further attention yet, in the study of administration and organization, it is indeed extensive and significant...