Administrative Culture

There is a close relationship between culture and behaviour. Culture represents the values cherished by an
individual, a society or an institution. These values underline the external conduct, which is reflected as
behaviour. The issue of governance in administration in recent times has become increasingly important. It is
true that organised society always needs some form of governance.

Generally, the expression administration is used in relation to what the government does and the
expression management is used in the context of business enterprises. Administrative behaviour and
administrative culture, therefore, refer to the culture and behaviour of government organisations. 1 Culture and
behaviour, as we have seen, are closely related. They are also shaped by a number of factors. Essentially, there
are three factors that decide the culture and, consequently, behaviour, namely:

1. the values cherished by the individual;

2. the values cherished by the society; and
3. the systems and procedures, which reflect these values.

Every administrative organisation has a culture, i.e., a persistent, patterned way of thinking about the principal
tasks of human relationships within an organisation. Culture is to an organisation what personality is to an
individual. Like human culture, generally, it is handed down from one to the next generation and changes very
slowly.

The concept of ‘organisational culture’ or ‘administrative culture’, though now much in vogue, is half-a-
century old. Chester I. Barnard spoke of the ‘moral element’ in organisation, and the ‘moral factor’ in
leadership. By moral he did not mean merely obeying the law or following the rules, but ‘the process of
inculcating points of view, fundamental attitudes, loyalties, in the administrative organisation…that will result
in subordinating individual interest…to the good of the cooperative whole’.2

Therefore, the overall socio-economic and political environment in which the administration works has a direct
bearing upon its functionaries. The environment moulds their manner, style, and behavioural patterns, and their
aspirations, ethos and values are shaped by them. These in combination constitute what may be called
the administrative culture.

Administrative culture is a product of peoples’ cognitive, perceptive and evaluating orientations towards their
administrative system. It also covers the entire gamut of traditional societal, historical and cultural values that
influence as well as governs the bureaucracy’s own behaviour and its professional norms, such as rationality,
impersonality, technology and efficiency. Thus, we are concerned not only with the behaviour and style of
accomplishing things by bureaucrats, which give rise to such perceptions and help shape the particular
environment in which the bureaucracy and the people interact.

The bureaucracy in India is a product of two different sets of influences: British traditions of the past and the
democratic welfare state of the present time. The bureaucracy, treated by the British to maintain the imperialist
traditions of a colonial government was a remarkable administrative legacy. However, since Independence, it
has been persistently argued that Indian administration has retained the negative aspects of our imperial legacy,
and the administrators are maladjusted, lack dedication and tend to be authoritarian. The incompatibility of the
‘ICS ethos’ with the needs of the present day government is stressed in contrast to the style of developmental
entrepreneurs who are not so rigidly tied to notions of bureaucratic states, hierarchy and impartiality.

The first serious inquiry constituted by the Centre was against Punjab’s controversial Chief Minister Pratap
Singh Kairon, initiated in 1963, that is, during Jawaharlal Nehru’s regime. The S. R. Das Commission of
Inquiry against Kairon submitted its report in June 1964—shortly after Nehru’s passing away. Observing strict
judicial standards, Justice S. R. Das indicted Kairon on several counts and found several cases of abuse.

ADMINISTRATIVE CULTURE: MEANING AND EMERGENCE

The ‘culture approach’ was first used in social sciences by G. Almond. The seeds of the term ‘administrative
culture’ were sown in the year 1963 when G. Almond and Sydney Verba published their path breaking
work The Civil Culture.

Administrative culture is a complex phenomenon. It is not easy to identify the parameters and dimensions that
constitute administrative culture. Administrative culture may be defined as an accumulated repository of the
symbols, beliefs, values, attitudes, norms etc. that governs and shape the administrative system in a society. It
comprises beliefs, symbols and values concerning administrative action and behaviour. Scholars have
identified four key component variables of administrative culture, namely:

 The administrator;
 The administrator’s perception of organisational goals;
 The administrative ecology; and
 The socio-cultural value norms, which give meaning to administrative action and behaviour.

‘Administrative culture is an essential concept for understanding administrative behaviour and its evolution but
is still in its infancy.3 Of late, growing attention is being devoted to the subject in literature and professional
practices alike. Long-standing administrative practices and patterns of behaviour in a given society could be
termed as administrative culture of that particular society. Also any directed change of administrative culture
takes long social rather than. ‘political time’ and space.4 The behaviour and style of accomplishing things by
bureaucrats which shape the particular environment in which the bureaucracy and the people interact as well as
the latter’s perception about their administrative system can be termed as administrative culture. 5 It is synthesis
of personal and social culture that reflect in the ethos, values and the objective of its organisation. 6

The administrative culture is a product of the three forces, namely, the administrative personality, time and
situation.

The administrator, as an individual and as part of the system, through his manners, behaviour, ways and style,
influences the formation of an administrative personality which also shapes the attitude of and motivates that
individual. The shaping of his personality is affected by time. It may still persist of even change with the time.

The overall impact of personality and time is on the situation in which the administration functions. Whether it
functions effectively and efficiently or ineffectively and inefficiently, depends upon the administrative culture
which has a direct reference to various factors such as the laws of the land, rules, regulations, procedures,
norms and manners. The style of the administration, on the one hand, depends upon the social, economic and
political environment, and on the people of the country on the other. The administrative culture provides a
general format within which the administration defines its tasks, and the people responds to the attitude,
behaviour, manner and style of the administrative functionaries.

Administration is considered to be an instrument of social change and development. Even after 60 year of
Independence, the goal of development and egalitarianism is far from being attained.

Indian administration should have been sensitive to public needs, public opinion and social justice. In keeping
with the tradition, the administration proved more committed to the master (politicians) than to the people,
Similar was the observation and attitude vis-a-vis the IAS made by Jawaharlal Nehru that ‘the sense of public
duty has been replaced by the superior claims of personal friendship with the politicians and ministers.’
Exceptions to such civil servants who do not appreciate political interference are rare and subject of frequent
transfers. There legitimate claims are denied to them.7 In the process, the Indian bureaucracy turned feudal and
status-conscious resulting in its exclusivity and distancing from the rest. The present, Indian administration has
become strongly power-oriented because of its political commitments. Majority of the bureaucrats have turned
‘yes men’ to their political bosses. This has resulted in a status-based value system of a hierarchical society
where the minister is a caste superior and the secretary a caster inferior or retainer. 8 The mass political transfers
are routinely accepted by the bureaucrats with least resistance.

In this situation it is difficult to maintain political neutrality or to exercise efficient administration. Free and
fearless advice are far from being realised. A tendency is stick to the ‘status quo’ that has taken roots in the
administration rather than acting as an instrument of social change.9

ADMINISTRATIVE CULTURE: A CONCEPT BY F. W. RIGGS

The word ‘culture’ has so many meanings it invites confusion. According to the recently published Encarta-
World English Dictionary, it has at least nine different meanings, three of which can be ignored here. They
relate to:

1. Biology, as in a culture for growing micro-organisms;

2. micro-organisms that grow in such an environment; and
3. tillage, as when preparing land for growing crops.

The six other senses are all relevant to administrative culture. Asummary of each of them follows. To help us
distinguish between them, a distinctive term is proposed for each manifestation of administrative culture.

The Arts

Music, literature, sculpture and painting. We may write Culture, capitalized, for this concept and Aesthetic
Administrative Culture for the aesthetic products seen in public activities that glorify the achievements of a
people and a state—they adorn public buildings, parks, murals and sculptures, and they promote ceremonial
music and public festivals.

Knowledge and Sophistication

The result of an excellent education. Preparing humane public officials, such as members of the administrative
class, who are capable of integrating and implementing complex policies for the general welfare is an example
of Educational Administrative Culture at its best. The tradition of generalist career bureaucracies is as ancient
as the Chinese mandarinate. It reached India via the British Imperial Indian Civil Service, from where it
migrated to the English Administrative Class, and radically transformed the American career civil services.

Shared Beliefs and Practices

The anthological sense of a culture includes all the distinctive attitudes and behaviours of a community. In this
sense we may speak of bureaucratic culture, referring to the characteristic life-ways of public officials,
including military personnel as well as civil servants. The bureaucratic culture may be seen as one dimension
of a total cultural system that exists in a single society or, more broadly speaking, we find patterns of
bureaucratic culture that reproduce themselves in many societies where the dynamics of governance by
officials generates distinctive cultural features that exist independent of the local cultural system.

People Who Share a Culture

Anthropologists also refer to the community whose members adhere to shared beliefs and practices as a
culture. In this sense, bureaucratic cultures pertain to bureaucracies or, more broadly speaking, to societies.
Traditional societies normally have a well-established cultural system shared by all the members of the society
but modern societies are increasingly heterogeneous, as global forces intrude into and transform their ways of
life. In this context, bureaucracies increasingly resemble each other across political boundaries, both because
administrative organisations spontaneously produce their own distinctive beliefs and practices, and also
because public officials actively borrow and export some of their characteristic features.

Shared Attitudes

In a metaphoric sense, we speak of a group’s code of conduct as its organisational culture. The code of silence,
for example, is a common attitude of public officials who conceal each other’s misconduct, perhaps hoping
thereby to escape personal responsibility—we may call it self-protective administrative culture. One way to
identify this form of administrative culture is to observe the changes in attitude and behaviour of officials when
they are on-duty by comparison with how they act when they are off-duty.

Improvement

A systematic effort to enhance skills and capabilities as exemplified in programmes of physical culture.
Administratively, this can take the form of in-service training and we might understand normative
administrative culture as activities that improve the efficiency and quality of public administration through
research, education and training. Normative administrative culture results from efforts by political leaders and
top bureaucrats to reform (or ‘re-invent’) organisational structure and guidelines in order to achieve more
efficiency and responsible governance. No doubt, conscientious public servants also seek to improve their own
performance- A case in instance would be the Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration,
Mussoorie, India (see http://www.lbsnaa.ernet.in/academy/academy.htm/). A notable centre for promoting
administrative culture is the Ecole Nationale d’ Administration, France (see http://www.ena.fr/). Similar
facilities in other countries also support training and research programmes that promote administrative culture
as a normative process. A list of such international facilities can be found
at http://www.iiasiisa.be/schools/aesites/htm/. This is the web site of the International Association of Schools
and Institutes of Public Administration.

In short, the study of administrative culture involves a complex of related but different things. Each of the six
senses of culture in the preceding list presupposes internal consistency among its component practices or traits.
In the world today, however, overlapping and incompatible cultural systems generate prismatic contradictions
and poly-normative conflicts. For the last two or three centuries, industrial imperialism has produced or
aggravated these conflicts, but since the collapse of these empires and the termination of the Cold War,
globalisation, speeded by the Internet and spreading access to instantaneous communication in cyberspace, has
rapidly accelerated the dissemination of modern secular equalitarian norms and systems of democratic
governance. These same forces also provoke resistance movements and efforts to preserve indigenous
traditions and lifestyles. Prismatic contradiction with many negative consequences has, therefore, become ever
more prevalent and conspicuous in the evolution of conflicted administrative cultures in all countries.

Components of Administrative Culture

The administrative culture of any society is a product of converging as well as conflicting components. Some
of them are the following.

The culture of the social formations or class from which administrators are largely recruited would be
the first component, more so if it is a single cohesive one. In almost all countries of the world, the nature,
composition and size of the middle class, from which administrators are largely drawn, determine important
elements of administrative culture.
Secondly, continuous internal interactions within the administrative apparatus contribute other elements, and
they become more important as they are continuous and intense. They constitute the strong element of peer
group pressure.

Thirdly, the interactions of administrators with their public and political masters determine some other
components of culture.

These three components may reinforce, contradict or dilute each other. It is assumed that in a largely
gesellschaftised society, they reinforce each other while in the large gemeinschaft societies of ‘developing’
countries, they may dilute each other producing a mixed (masala) administrative culture.

RIGGS ON ADMINISTRATIVE ECOLOGY: ADMINISTRATIVE CULTURE OF DEVELOPING SOCIETIES

Fred W. Riggs developed certain ideal models to analyse the administrative systems of developing countries.
He first used his much published models in 1956, by classifying the societies into Agraria and Industria, that is,
agricultural and industrial societies. However, the typology of Agraria—Industria was criticised as having
many limitations. So Riggs developed another set of models—the fused-prismatic-diffracted model.
Accordingly, in a fused society a single structure carries out various functions. Contrary to this, in a diffracted
society separate structures are created to carry out specific functions. But between these two there exist a
number of societies, in which the characteristics of both fused and diffracted societies exist side by side. These
are called prismatic societies.

According to Riggs, prismatic society has three important characteristic features: (a) heterogeneity: (b)
formalism; and (c) overlapping.

A prismatic society is characterised by a high degree of ‘heterogeneity’ which refers to the ‘simultaneous
presence side by side, of quite different kinds of system practices and viewpoints’. The coexistence of fused
and the diffracted traits are an indication and consequence of incomplete and uneven social change. There are,
in a prismatic society, urban areas with a ‘sophisticated’ intellectual class, with offices built in Western style
and modern gadgets of administrations. On the other hand, there exist rural areas possessing traditional looks
and outlooks with village heads or elders combining various political, administrative and social roles.
Formalism refers to the degree of discrepancy or incongruence between the formally prescribed and the
effectively practiced norms and realities and the existence of discrepancy between the stated objectives and
real performance. Related to heterogeneity and formalism are the characteristics of ‘overlapping’ which refers
to ‘the extent to which formally differentiated structures of a differentiated structures of a diffracted society
coexist with undifferentiated structures of a fused type. In administrative systems what is described as
administrative behaviour is actually determined by non-administrative criteria, that is, by political, social,
religious or other factors. Though formal recognition is given to new norms and values which are generally
associated with diffracted structure, in reality they are paid only lip-sympathy and are overlooked widely in
favour of traditional values associated with undefeated societies.

Prismatic society is characterised by various economic, social, political and administrative sub-systems. Riggs
termed the administrative sub-systems as ‘Sala model’. Sala has certain features of diffracted ‘bureau’ and
fused ‘chamber’.

In a prismatic society, family welfare, nepotism and favouritism play a very important role in the appointments
to various administrative positions and performing administrative functions. In a diffracted society, the
considerations of kinship are kept away from administrative behaviour and exercise of governmental power. In
a fused society the politico-administrative positions and performing administrative functions. In a diffracted
society, the considerations of kinship are kept away from the administrative behaviour and the exercise of
governmental power. In a fused society the politico-administrative system has a patrimonial character, and
therefore, provides dominant importance to kinship or family. In a prismatic society, on the other hand, besides
the superimposition of new formal structures on family and kinship, universalisation of laws is disregarded.
The ‘Sala’ officer gives priority to personal aggrandizement than to social welfare. His behaviour and
performance are influenced and governed by parochialism, as a result the rules and regulations are not made
universally applicable. A few people get more benefits from the government programmers ignoring the
interests of a large number of people. Thus, a public official in a prismatic society is likely to develop a greater
sense of loyalty towards the members of his own community than towards the government. Sometimes, the
Sala develops close relations with particular clefts or starts functioning like a Cleft itself. As a consequence of
this alliance between Sala and Clects, Sala officials profit through kickbacks or rebates.

Thus, ecological models, such as those of Riggs, provide conceptual tools for identifying and analysing the
contextual values that motivate administrative behaviour in developing countries. In Riggs’ analysis of the
prismatic society, the major focus is on the impact of the environment (or administrative culture) on
administrative structures.

COMMON ADMINISTRATIVE PATTERNS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Potentially the most significant, a political fact of the 20th century has been the closing out of the colonial are
and the emergence, in most cases as newly independent states, of the nations of Africa, Asia and Latin
America. Despite their differences, all of these countries are caught up in a process of drastic and rapid social
change. They all are in transition, they are moving from the traditional towards the modern type. The following
five features are indicative of the characteristics of the administrative patterns (culture) found in countries of
the developing world.

1. The basic pattern of public administration is imitative rather than indigenous.

2. The bureaucracies are deficient in skilled manpower necessary for developmental programmes. The
shortage is in trained administrators with management capacity, developmental skills and technical
competence.
3. A third tendency is for these bureaucracies to put emphasis on orientation that is other than
production-directed; that is, much bureaucratic activity is channelled toward the realisation of goals
other than the achievements of programme objectives.
4. The widespread discrepancy between form and reality is another distinguishing characteristic. Riggs
has labelled this phenomenon as ‘formalism’.
5. Finally, the bureaucracy in a developing country is apt to have a generous measure of operational
autonomy, which can be accounted for by the convergence of several forces usually at work in a
recently independent modernising nation. Colonialism was essentially the rule over bureaucracy with
policy guidance from remote sources, and this pattern persists even after the bureaucracy has a new
master in the nation.

In brief, for many postcolonial countries colonial legacy has decisive influence on administrative culture. The
reform efforts in the post-independent period do not usually produce a substantial change in the inherited
colonial administrative culture. System, therefore, fails to demonstrate democratic responsiveness, public
service orientation and dynamism. Administration retains its colonial identity of an instrument predominantly
of control.

ADMINISTRATIVE CULTURE IN INDIA

The 5,000 years or more of the known history of India has often proved to be both an asset as well as a liability
for the nation. Basically it is a culture rich in traditions and had produced one of the oldest and advanced
civilisations of the planet. In course of time, it assimilated the cultures imported from many lands by the
successive invaders. It goes to the credit of the flexible Indian culture to have enriched itself with some of the
traits of alien cultures. Many of the invaders, except the British, have stayed back in India, accepting the
composite culture of the land. It was the British who brought the strong winds of change that has modified
some of the basic values underlying the Indian culture. The modern system of communications is but one of
the important developments that have changed the Indian way of life. Along with it is stated the process of
industrialisation, scientific temperament and pursuit of material prosperity.

Culture does not change easily. It compels people and their institutions to value certain things, it influences
their attitudes and prescribes their behavioural patterns. It creates a strong urge to think and act in a particular
way of life. Culture expresses itself in the personality traits of individuals irrespective of the context in which
they behave. Some of the basic cultural traits are relatively stable, consistent and difficult to change, while
some others get modified with strong environmental forces that influence the society from time to time.
Broadly speaking, a traditional and conservative society, like the Indian society, permits its culture to change
only when the new attitudes and behaviour bring with them tangible benefits resulting in prosperity, human
welfare and happiness. Within a span of one generation, there has been so much change that there exists today
a wide variation in the value systems of the senior and the junior members of several families. The
administrative system of the country could not escape this impact of change in the cultural setting of the
society.

India owes the origin of its contemporary administrative system to the British who had developed it over a
period of two centuries. It was a system often described as one of the best in the world in the sense that it had
eminently served the purpose for which it was created. The Indian Civil Service literally carried the empire on
its shoulders and efficiently managed the few functions entrusted to it. The British administration greatly
influenced the social and cultural setup of the country, much more than being influenced by them. The
Weberian model eminently suited the interest of the alien rulers. At the same time, the British not only
tolerated the feudal elements in the country but even encouraged them as a safeguard against popular upsurge.

India has inherited a conservative, secular and rational system of administration, which successfully steered the
country from an authoritarian to a democratic rule. The first generation leaders of free India supported the
administrative system as it proved to be a dedicated and powerful instrument, which had efficiently managed
the post-war and post-partition problems. At the time of Independence, the Indian bureaucracy approximated
to the classical British model with its integrity, impartiality, neutrality and anonymity. The bureaucrats
rendered their best advice and never indulged in any politicking. On their part, the political leaders not only
tolerated but also encouraged impartial advice and dissent even when it went against their political interests. It
was the era of the statement political, who conducted himself with dignity while giving due respect to the
civilians working under him.

DEGRADATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM

The relationship between ministers and secretaries necessarily depends upon the form of government the
county has opted for.10 The parliamentary form of government postulates a particular kind of relationship
which is unlike that prevailing under the presidential system of government. In a parliamentary democracy a
minister is the political head of his department and is required to discharge his responsibilities with constant
assistance of the officials of his ministry. Civil servants are permanent, skilled and professionals, who serve
any policy or government in power with equal loyalty and devotion.

In India, the relationship between political and permanent executive occupies a pivotal position as on it
depends socio-economic development of the country. The political executive not only lays down public
policies, it also defines the tasks of bureaucrats and supervises their implementation. The permanent executive
comprises civil servants who are considered to be the vertebrate column of the administration. Normally,
ministries take policy decisions and set down the guidelines and general pattern of administration. The
execution of those decisions and application of policy guidelines to individual cases is, however, to be left to
the civil servants. Senior civil servants of the rank of secretaries by their nothing and otherwise appraise
ministers on the basis of their expertise about the various pros and cons of the proposed policy decisions and in
process express their preferences. It is this role of secretaries which often puts a strain on their relationship
with the ministers.

The problem of adjustment between civil servants and politicians is not, however, entirely new. Since the end
of colonial period, there has been a persistent argument that Indian administrators, retaining negative aspects of
the imperial policy, are maladjusted, lack dedication and tend to be authoritarian. The incompatibility of the
‘ICS ethos’ with the needs of the present-day government, is stressed in contrast to the style of development
enterprisers who are not so rigidly tied to notions of bureaucratic status, hierarchy and impartiality. 11 Nehru
was of the view that no new order can be build up in India as long as the spirit of the Indian Civil Service
pervades our administration and our public services.12

After independence, new tasks and responsibilities were assigned to the newly constituted Indian
Administrative Service (IAS), but with no radical departure from the British administrative traditions. In the
course of 60 years of Independence, the IAS has emerged as the elite corps who staff key positions close to the
president and the prime minister as well as other high-ranking officials, and are charged with coordinating
cabinet policies and formulating administrative projects. The British influence contributed both technically and
politically to the development of bureaucracy in India. Technically the bureaucracy in India has emerged as a
corporate body of professionals stepped into hierarchy, but also politically acting as power broker between the
politicians and the members of society who desire to receive special favours.

In the early days after Independence, critical reactions of civil servants by way of pointing out of limitations
and difficulties in pursuing a particular policy were not only tolerated but welcomed by the ministers.
Protection against political interference was provided from the top echelons. State chief ministers encouraged
young civil servants to stand up and do the right and chief secretaries backed them up. Civil servants were
ready to accept final orders and execute them faithfully. M. Subramaniam recalled his tenure as a transport
commissioner and the Chairman of the state transport authority, where successive chief ministers encouraged
him to dispose of the cases according to law without fear or favour. Politicians attempt to bring in ‘Permit
rajristed by him because of the value attached by the top political bosses to integrity and impartiality in the
bureaucracy.

The bureaucrats in India are required to prepare arguments in favour of or against a proposal, but the decision
has to be taken by a minister. In this process, they should tender fearless advice. They have to maintain
objectivity and have to deep in view the implications of a particular decision. The decisions taken by a minister
should be obeyed and implemented faithfully. The tradition in the cities was that the bureaucrats could record
their advice without fear, so long as they did not mind being overruled by higher authorities.

The question is whether the bureaucracy can continue to feel safe after giving honest advice, however
unpalatable, to the political bosses? M. Subramaniam recalled some instances where he gave fearless advice
but never felt threatened, at least in earlier years. He recalled the action taken by him under the Defense of
India Rules against a newspaper editor close to a chief minister, and inviting the wrath of the minister. He was
expecting to be immediately shifted from the post of a collector but was pleasantly of the political and
administrative policy makers. Civil ser…anticipated the wishes of those in authority, however illegal, immoral
and incongruous with the basic tenets of administration.

It can be easily identified that after Independence, the political leadership carried an entirely different image of
the British Indian Civil service and Administration. ICS officers perceived themselves as the guardians and
believed that they were men of superior virtue. Political leadership regarded them elitist and authoritarian. It
has also been alleged that the administrators of post-Independence India were as elitist and West-oriented as
their counterparts during colonial rule. Therefore, they continued to be alienated from the large mass of the
poor of the country and would not possess requisite behavioural characteristics needed to implement the
development programmes initiated by the government.
In a parliamentary democracy, a minister enjoys a triple prerogative of posting, of promotion and of
suspension. By manipulating these rights, particularly his rights of posting and transfer, he was able to make
civil servants bend. C. P. Bhambhri argued that senior administrators have forged alliance with politicians not
only to brighten their own career prospects but also to articulate political views and gain a greater share of
social resources. This bureaucratic goal was encouraged by the way the Indian economy was managed. Civil
servants lost little time in forsaking their professionalism and became pliable and ready to do whatever the ill-
motivated ministers wanted.

Honest civil servants are generally not liked by ministers. They are thus sidetracked and find themselves
solitary and lonely, occupying peripheral positions in public administration. Those in demand by ministers are,
on the other hand, the pliable ones who remain at the beck and call and are prepared to do everything
regardless of whether rules and laws of the land warrant them or not.

The Indian administrative system is strongly power-oriented and has, consequently, a distinctly feudal culture.
Crawling and cringing before bosses is not a phenomenon which was confined to the emergency era but is a
daily phenomenon, and the chief merit of the senior bureaucrats seems to lie in rationalising their bosses’
decisions and discouraging their juniors from prelisting too loudly when ethical or even constitutional
principles are violated by such decisions. The power orientation of the administrator has also fostered an
administrative culture wherein a citizen is perceived as a ‘subject’ and not as sovereign. Another striking
element of the Indian administrative culture is the absence of any sense of accountability among senior
administrators.

Conclusion

In brief, culture is not something to be imported or transplanted. It must grow from within over a period of
time.

Administrative culture and its public administration must always be in harmony with each other. Since public
administration of a developing country must itself change to cope with change, it follows then that its
administrative culture should also show such a change-oriented propensity.

Administrative culture does not change overnight even with revolutions as the aftermath of the historic French
and Russian revolutions demonstrated.

REFERENCES

1. N. Vittal, Central Vigilance Commissioner, ‘Administrative Behaviour and Administrative Culture’, Talk
delivered at the inaugural ceremony of the Journal of Administrative and Administrative Culture on 21
October 2002, Shimla.

2. Chester I. Bernard, 1936, The Functions of the Executive, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, p.
279.

3. Almond Gabrial and Sidney Verba, 1963, The Civic Culture, Princeton: Princeton University Press

4. Dr Renu Srivastava, 2006, ‘Administrative Culture of Indian Administrative Services in Uttar

Pradesh,’ Quarterly Journal of Administrative Behaviour and Administrative Culture, 6 (1), January–March.

5. Fernard Braudel, 1980, On History, Chicago: University of Chacago Press.

6. R. B. Jain and O. P. Dwivedi, ‘Administrative Culture and Bureaucratic Values in India’, in T. N.
Chaturvedi (ed.), Contemporary Administrative Culture and India, New Delhi: IIPA.

7. Lalita Honup, 2000, ‘Administrative Culture: An Indian way, in R. D. Sharma (ed.), Administrative Culture
in India, New Delhi: Anamika Publishing, pp. 6–20.

8. Ibid., pp. 6–20

9. Ibid., pp. 6–20.

10. Shastri, 1956, ‘Administrative Heritage of India’, Indian Journal of Public Administration, 2 (4), p. 350.

11. Paul H. Appleby, 1953, Public Administration in India: Report of Survey, New Delhi: Government of
India, p. 24.

12. S. S. Tiwana, ‘Relationship Between Ministers and Secretaries in India,’ Higher Civil Services in India.