Abstract
This study is an exposition into the conceptual and methodological approaches to the study structural and functional theory and to examine its instrumentality to comparative study of administrative system. Essentially, the comparative approach to public administration has serious inclination to research and theory-building. It similarly promises to take public administration closer to the scientific status/destination which it desperately covets through empiricism. The ingredients and procedures for attaining this were articulated in this study. Some of the theories and models considered useful in analyzing administrative / political systems were also identified and discussed in the study
INTRODUCTION
The study of comparative public administration involves elements of at least two broader strands of social inquiry. First, the principal substantive focus of comparative administration is the structure and activities of public administration and public administrators. This concern raises a number of related questions about the efficiency and effectiveness of administrative systems. In this first body of literature, the variables and subjects of investigation are either at a micro level (human behavior within organizations or between clients and administrators), or are premised on shared and largely unquestioned values of a single political system. The theory and practice of public administration include a wide range of schools of thought, administrative traditions and implementation tools. Taking as a starting point the traditional model of Weberian bureaucracies, the evolution of administrative systems, methods and styles followed different paths and was subjected to various influences deriving from related disciplines, such as political science, economics and sociology. In brief, the shift in the public bureaucracy towards private sector techniques became a popular trend in the 1980s, moving the study and practice of administration closer to economic and managerial ideas (Hood, 1991; Osborne and Gaebler, 1992; Pollitt, 1990). Structural-Functionalism appears to be getting a new lease on life. Despite the fact that, during the 1960s and 1970s, social tensions exposed weaknesses in its foundational precepts, themes from the Structural-Functionalist school of thought continue to underpin contemporary approaches to organizational and societal challenges. Functionalism, also called structural-functional theory, sees society as a structure with interrelated parts designed to meet the biological and social needs of the individuals in that society. Functionalism grew out of the writings of English philosopher and biologist, Hebert Spencer (1820–1903), who saw similarities between society and the human body; he argued that just as the various organs of the body work together to keep the body functioning, the various parts of society work together to keep society functioning (Spencer 1898). The parts of society that Spencer referred to were the social institutions, or patterns of beliefs and behaviors focused on meeting social needs, such as government, education, family, healthcare, religion, and the economy.
STRUCTURAL-FUNCTIONALISM
Frenchman, Henri de Saint-Simon (1760-1825), proposed one of the earliest documented attempts devoted to the study of society. However, it was his understudy, August Comte (1798-1857), who offered a model on which an emerging field would develop. A positivist at heart, and harbouring a scientific ethos, Comte proposed a theory2 positing that the sciences followed an evolutionary pattern; one in which the highest order, and most complex of them, Social Sciences, emanates from biology. Of this precept, Comte argues that the way an organism relates to its environment, the interrelatedness of parts within its overall system, as well as how it goes about maintaining its overall system when balance is disturbed could serve as a model for the study of society. (Comte and Lenzer 1975).
STRUCTURAL-FUNCTIONALISM AND ORGANIZATIONAL AND MANAGEMENT
The sociological landscape is scattered with theories and approaches purporting to provide insight to societal issues. Additionally, in business school curricula, several models comprise the basic pedagogical framework of core marketing and strategic courses. Upon closer inspection of some of the precepts underpinning these approaches, I argue that they build on classic structural-functionalist principles. Neofunctionalism: Here I draw attention to the 1980s work of US theorist, Jeffrey C. Alexander. In Neofunctionalism and After, Alexander (1998) openly admits that the model is firmly rooted in functionalist principles and has a particular bent to refining Parsons’ work. Although criticized by Turner and Maryanski (1988) in their article, “Is ‘Neofunctionalism' Really Functional, Neofunctonalism's association with the classic theory is never in dispute. In developing this theory, they maintain the functionalist focus on stability, interrelationship of parts, as well as impact of environmental forces. But, in what appears to be an effort to silence the critics, they modify Parsons' action framework by incorporating the dynamics of conflict and change. Turner and Maryanski further imply that, where Neofunctionalism deviates from the traditional theory by downplaying how needs of systems are met, this shift could well be a deliberate attempt to evade the teleological debate.
STRUCTURAL-FUNCTIONAL THEORY
