Part III: Managing Institutions through Planning and Decentralization

Abstract

The collection includes work on planning and decentralization because these are all tied together in the broad attempt at enhancing rural and community administration theory. Planning is a decision-making activity. It is also a process of control because it involves gathering information and marshalling resources “in a sequential priority framework in order to maximize agreed-upon objectives” (Murray, 1975, p. 369). Although planning is an integral part of development administration, its origins are not hard to find in western administrative thought. In fact, American public administration students can easily trace planning to classical works of Frederick W. Taylor and Luther Gulick. The former articulated the process in his design for work practices in corporations. For his part, Gulick's principles included a statement to the effect that planning was a central managerial role. Arguably, the American planning variant had more to do with the business world as opposed to the public sector. It was also largely decentralized and not comprehensive. This is in sharp contrast with the vast majority of countries, especially in the 1960s and 1970s. The planning discourse then assumed ideological proportions. This was in part due to the association of planning with command-type Communist Soviet administrative styles. Ironically, centralized planning achieved some limited success and was considered a useful tool for promoting development and industrialization.

Citation

Otenyo, E.E. and Lind, N.S. (2006), "Part III: Managing Institutions through Planning and Decentralization", Otenyo, E.E. and Lind, N.S. (Ed.) Comparative Public Administration (Research in Public Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 15), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 359-369. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-1317(06)15051-4