Ecological Approach of Fredric Riggs

By Dr.Biswaranjan Mohanty

Riggs has used the ecological studies in terms of both the developing and developed societies.
Initially, he dealt with Agraria-Industria Model and later he replaced it with ‘Fused-PRiggs’s
prismatic-sala model is only an ideal type-construct and may not portray the reality of the social
or administrative systems of developing countries. It may be pointed out that all features of
prismatic societies may not apply to all ‘developing’ nations. There is no uniformity in the level
of ‘prismatism’ existing among all nations. Some are more prismatic while others may be ‘less
prismatic’. There is no society that is ‘totally prismatic.’
Fred W Riggs (1917-2008) has been a pioneer in the discipline of comparative public
administration. A political scientist by training, his professional focus on comparative analysis of
governance systems has been most prominent and commendable. Some of the books written or
edited by Fred Riggs are as under: 1. The Ecology of Public Administration (1961) 2. Models
and Priorities in the Comparative Study of Public Administration (CAG monograph with Edward
Weidner, 1963) Administration in Developing Countries: Theory of Prismatic Society (1964) 4.
Thailand: Modernization of a Bureaucratic Polity (1966) 5. Frontiers of Development
Administration (Editor, 1970) 6. Prismatic Society Revisited (monograph, 1973).

The Ecological Approach

‘Ecology’ means ‘environment’. However, in the context of comparative public administration, it
implies a mutual or reciprocal relationship and interaction between an administrative system and
its environment. Among scholars who have highlighted this approach in the context of public
administration are John M.Gaus, Robert A. Dahl, and most importantly, Fred W. Riggs, whose
lectures delivered on this approach at the Indian Institute of Public Administration were
published in a book titled ‘The Ecology of Public Administration’ in 1961. Riggs emphasized
that differences and similarities among administrative systems in the western and the non-
western world could be understood properly only when we look at their environment and its
dynamic relationship with the administrative system.
In 1962, in his seminal article ‘Trends in the Comparative Study of Public Administration’
published in International Review of Administrative Sciences, Riggs had mentioned that
comparative public administration was moving away from a state of being “non-ecological” to a
state of being “ecological”. What he meant was that traditional studies of comparative public
administration did not adequately take into account the reciprocal relationships between the
administrative system and its environmental context.

Premise of Ecological Approach

1
 Under the ecological approach, there are four premises: 1. An administrative system is a
subsystem of the political system and hence it is deeply influenced by the political executive, the
legislature,the judiciary, political parties, pressure groups, and the election system of a country.
2. An administrative system is impacted by the economic system, the social system, the cultural
system, demographic structure, and mass psychology (including the technological system),
which together form its context. 3. Likewise, the administrative system directly or indirectly,
affects the functioning of political institutions, the economic system, the social system, the
cultural system, the technological system, and mass psychology, all comprising its broader
environment. 4. There is a constant dynamic relationship between an administrative system and
its environment. Since the environments of various nations and culture have diversity, at the
comparative level, all administrative systems develop their own distinctive characteristics. The
similarities and differences between an administrative system at the cross-national and cross-
cultural levels can be appreciated only through the ecological approach.
Application of Ecological Approach
Fred Riggs is the foremost scholar, who has applied the ecological approach to the comparative
study of administrative systems. His models of ‘Agraria’, Industria,’ ‘Fused’, ‘Prismatic,’ and
‘Diffracted’ societies and their respective administrative systems are rooted in the ecological
approach. It may be mentioned that the ecological approach is a component of the system
approach.
Both are interactional in their perspectives. Besides Riggs, there are other scholars who have
analyzed administrative systems of various nations in an ecological context, although they may
not have used the nomenclature of the ‘ecological’ approach. Such scholars include Ferrel
Heady, Ralph Braibanti, Milton Esman, A. H Hanson, and Krishna K Tummala.
Merits of Ecological Approach
 The ecological approach signifies that administrative reforms in various countries ought
to be given priorities that are useful for them.
 It underlines that administrative reforms can be facilitated only when they attain the
support of political, economic, and socio-cultural systems. This approach makes us
aware that there are varying cultural frameworks influencing the administrative system.
For instance, what is considered a ‘corrupt’ practice in one culture may not be treated so
in another country or culture.
 In the context of development administration, it is the ecological approach that helps in
determining the direction of change in the administrative system and other systems
comprising the environment. It posits a relationship between ‘administrative
development’ and ‘development administration.’
 The ecological approach is constructed logically. It focuses on administrative reality in
various contexts and environments.
 It has the intrinsic capacity of explaining the sources of similarities and differences
among administrative systems working in different nations and cultures.
Limitations

2
  It is difficult to assess the nature and quantum of the impact of various environmental
structures on an administrative system.
 It is also problematic to analyze the nature and extent of the influence exercised by an
administrative system over its environment.
 It is difficult to be operationalized for empirical research

Agraria and Industria Models

Fred W. Riggs utilized in an innovate manner the essential feature of the general system
approach, the structural-functional, and the ecological approach, while developing a typology of
models in his path-breaking article entitled, ‘Agraria and Industria- Toward a Typology of
Comparative Administration’ published in an anthology, Towards a Comparative study of Public
Administration edited by William J Siffin in 1957.
In the agrarian-industria models, Riggs used the ideal-type methodology, which has logically
inter-related various important and relevant concepts and their relationships and, which are based
on an imagination and extrapolation of societies that represent the total development of the
characteristics of a particular model.
Like Max Weber’s models, Riggs’s models are idealtypical or ‘pure’ in formulation and are not
found in real life. It may, however, be pointed out that Riggs abstracted his Agrarian model from
the features of Imperial China of ancient times and likewise, for Industria, he abstracted the
features of modern United States of America.
Normally, we can say that two were inductive models derived from the study of distinct
historical societies. However, we should remember that ideal-type models are not necessarily
inductive or deductive. Deductive models by some scholars are constructed on the basis of the
analysis of features of several societies or systems. It is assumed by some scholars that Weber’s
model of bureaucracy was apparently ‘deductive’ in nature. Nevertheless, the caution is clear:
Ideal type models need not be inductive or deductive. They have a methodology of their own.

Agraria

The main features of an agrarian society were as follows:

 Man’s status is based on his birth (parentage, lineage)
 Traditions are followed, as the basis of functioning of an administrative system. These
traditions favor particular privileged groups over the rest.
 There are structures that perform a large number of functions; they are multi-functional in
nature.
 Social groups at the local level are stable and there is very little movement from one
social group to another.
 Thus, the status system is rigid and almost closed. 5. Occupations in this society have
very little specialization. 6. Various groups in the agrarian society have specific tasks

3
 defined by traditions. This leads to rigidity in their classification in social hierarchy that
is based on conventional stratification.
Industria

An industria society has the following features:

 There is universalism and equity in the application of rules in society. No special

privileges are granted to any particular section of society.
 Structures are specialized in their nature. They perform tasks particularly related to their
own special sphere.
 Progress of a person in society and the administrative system is decided on merit and
achievement (as against birth in the agraria)
 Certain social groups have the opportunity and freedom to move on to other social groups
depending on their will and skill. The road to progress, vertical or horizontal, is not
blocked for anyone.
 The occupational system is well-developed with its own norms and rules. There is no
interference of any outside structure in the conduct of occupational roles.
 The class system in society is not rigid or based on any conventional social hierarchy.
Instead, it is based on a generalized pattern of occupational achievement.
 Associations in society are not based on rigidity or birth. Instead, they are functionally
specialized and based on achievement
Limitations
The agraria- industria typology paved the way for an exciting debate on the need for innovative
conceptual constructs for studying the developing as well as developed societies and countries.
However, within two years, Riggs himself abandoned these two models and created a new
typology of Fused-Prismatic-Diffracted societies.
Fused-Prismatic-Diffracted Societies
Riggs has classified societies under his revised typology on the basis of the level of
differentiation (specialization) and the level of integration (coordination). Riggs does not use the
term ‘developing’ or ‘developed’ nations or societies in his fused-prismatic-diffracted typology.
He is of the view that the term ‘developed’ or ‘developing’ nations are too general and do not
reflect his notion of classifying societies on the basis of differentiation– integration relationship.
Fused Society
A fused society has the following features:
 It is a traditional society, where old structures exist.
 Most structures are multi-functional, i.e. one structure performs a large number of
functions.
 Status and privileges in society are determined by birth or traditional status (Ascription).
 Certain specific groups in society gain preferred treatment and status in society
(Particularism).

4
  There is very low mobility in terms of status and occupations. The social structure and
occupations are rigid, since they are based on birth and time-honored conventions
Diffracted Society
A diffracted society has the following features:
 It has a very high level of specialization of structures and functions.
 There is also a high level of integration (coordination) in these societies, thus there is
hardly any gap existing between the levels of specialization and integration (Diffraction).
 There is equity among social groups, with no group enjoying special preferences and
privileges (Universalism).
 There is considerable mobility in status and occupations. People can move from one
occupation to the other.
 Progress in the socio-economic system is based on merit and performance
(Achievement).
Prismatic Society
In between the two categories of ‘fused’ and ‘diffracted’ societies are prismatic societies that
have the following features:
1. Selectivism: This is an intermediate category between universalism and particularism. Under
a prismatic system, certain groups, though larger in number than in a fused society, gain
precedence over the less privileged groups.
2. Attainment: This is an intermediate category between ascription and achievement, implying
that in a prismatic society, merit as well as traditional status, that is, based on birth, caste etc.
determine the movement of a person to a higher level.
3. Poly-functionalism: This is an intermediate category between functional specification and
functional diffuseness. It implies that in a prismatic society, the level of specialization is much
larger than found in a fused society, but less than what is prevalent in diffracted societies.
THE PRISMATIC-SALA MODEL
A prismatic society is a ‘mixed’ society that has the features of ‘fused’ as well as ‘diffracted’
societies. Let us look at the main features of prismatic society and its administrative system, the
‘sala’. These features can be interpreted, as the characteristic of ‘developing’ or ‘transitional’
societies and their administrative systems.
Heterogeneity
Heterogeneity means diversity. In a prismatic society, there is a coexistence of the features of
fused as well as diffracted societies. There are in this society, traditional as well as modern
systems, practices, viewpoints, norms, and behavior patterns co-existing. There are metropolitan
towns and rural areas; traditional and modern attitudes, western style departmental stores and
small village shops; large companies as well as small cooperative societies and cottage industries
run by families; giant universities as well as one-teacher schools; and multi-specialty large

5
hospitals and one-physician Ayurveda or Unani clinics. Such diversity can also be seen in the
simultaneous existence of financial institutions such as SEBI and village moneylenders;
multinational corporations and village patwaris (revenue officials); and old manual typewriters
along with sophisticated information technology.
Formalism
In prismatic societies, there is wide gap existing between laws and their implementation,
promises made by leaders and their execution and plans and their implementation. While
government programmes are meant to benefit all citizens or specific groups, there is partiality
seen in granting such benefits. Those who pay bribe or are in friendship with powerful leaders or
administrators or are themselves socially and economically influential, grab a major chunk of
benefits. The sala officials may also take advantage of this situation and receive illegal income
through unethical practices. Riggs observes that in prismatic societies, a large number of
administrative reforms committees and commissions are appointed for improving the
performance and behavior of the sala, yet their recommendation are rarely accepted by the
government, and even when these recommendations are accepted, they are rarely executed
faithfully. Thus, the impact of administrative reforms remains only superficial.
Overlapping
In a prismatic society, new and modern structures are designed to perform important socio-
economic functions, but along with them, traditional structures continue to exercise an
overlapping influence on the dynamics of such functions. Likewise, old traditional values and
modern objective and rational values overlap with each other. Thus, one function may be
performed by more than one structure. Some of these structures are formal, others are informal.
While administrative functions should be performed mostly by administrative institutions, the
reality in prismatic societies is that political leaders, political parties, pressure groups,
industrialists, businessmen, caste leaders, religious leaders, and other sections of society also
influence the developmental and regulatory policies and programmes and their implementation.
Overlapping has several dimensions--political, economic, social, culture, and administrative, a
brief reference to, which is made below: a. Political System: Bureaucratic Polity In a prismatic
society, there is a separation of ‘authority’ (officially sanctioned or legitimate power) and
‘control’ (‘real’ but ‘unofficially’ permitted or illegitimate power’.) Riggs observes that a
‘balanced polity’ is characterized by a balance between the power enjoyed and exercised by
politicians and the bureaucrats. While bureaucrats are expected to implement policies made by
political leaders, they, in actual behavior, carry considerable informal influence on the drafting of
policies and in controlling the governance system through their high intellectual ability,
communication powers, specialized knowledge, and long administrative experience. A polity,
where, bureaucrats dominate the governance system is called ‘bureaucratic polity’. Riggs
observes that an excessive bureaucratic power leads to lack of controls and regulations and thus
to administrative ineffectiveness. On the contrary, there may be a situation, where the politicians
enjoy excessive powers and control the governance system for achieving their ‘own’ narrow

6
goals. Even this is an unbalanced polity. It would then be a ‘party-run’ polity that works against
a rational governance system.

Economic System:
Bazaar-Canteen Model In a prismatic society there exists a ‘price-indeterminacy’ or a bazaar-
like (market) situation. While the clients or citizens are the buyers of government services, public
officials are the sellers of such services. Although rates and rules are fixed legally for each
service, public officials discriminate among citizens and charge higher prices or lower rates,
depending on a client’s status and influence. Further, the rates of government services are
specially subsidized for certain influential social and political groups. This is a ‘canteen’
approach, where the ‘insiders’ enjoy more benefits at reduced rates than do the less privileged
‘outsiders.’
Administrative System:
Nepotism Public officials in the sala are guided in their decisions and actions by considerations
of family, loyalty, kinship, and friendship. Thus, nepotism and favoritism rule the governance
system. Yes, a lip service is paid to the norms of universalism and impartiality, while in the
system of recruitment and in the distribution of services, discrimination is found rampant. In
sum, according to the prismatic-sala model, there is dominance of non-formal structures and
patterns of behavior in society and the administrative system, which are not in conformance with
the goals of development, rationality, objectivity, and justice.
Riggs’s prismatic-sala model is only an ideal type-construct and may not portray the reality of
the social or administrative systems of developing countries. It may be pointed out that all
features of prismatic societies may not apply to all ‘developing’ nations. There is no uniformity
in the level of ‘prismatism’ existing among all nations. Some are more prismatic while others
may be ‘less prismatic’. There is no society that is ‘totally prismatic’. In fact, even developed
nations like the USA, Great Britain, and Russia contain a few prismatic traits in their social,
political, economic, and administrative systems.