ArticlePDF Available

Development Administration in Post-Independence Guyana

Authors:
Development
Administration
in
Post-Independence
Guyana
by
Kempe
R.
HOPE
*,
Maxwell
School
of
Citizenship
and
Public
Affairs,
Syracuse
University
INTRODUCTION
Development
administration,
as
a
discipline,
has
gained
rapid
recognition
in
recent
years
and
has
resulted
in
a
growing
amount
of
liter-
ature
being
published
on
it.
It
is
a
concept
which
embraces
the
array
of
new
functions
assumed
by
developing
countries
embarking
on
the
path
of
modernization
and
industrialization
and
ordinarily
involves
the
establishment
of
machinery
for
planning
economic
growth
and
mobilizing
and
allocating
resources
to
expand
national
income
(1).
At
its
fullest
range,
devel-
opment
administration
embraces
every
area
and
activity
governed
by
public
policy.
By
estab-
lished
usage,
however,
development
adminis-
tration
has
come
to
signify
primarily
the
organ-
ization,
personnel,
practices,
and
procedures
essential
to
effective
performance
of
the
civilian
function
entrusted
to
the
executive
branch
of
government.
Hence,
development
administration
is
deci-
sion-making,
planning,
formulating
objectives
and
goals.
It
is
the
action
part
of
govern-
ment,
the
means
by
which
the
purposes
and
goals
of
government
are
realized.
This
paper
examines
development
adminis-
tration
in
the
post-independence
economy
of
Guyana
within
the
framework
of
the
definitions
of
development
administration
that
have
been
outlined
above.
The
paper
will
be
developed
in
the
following
manner.
First,
the
structure
of
development
administration
in
Guyana
will
be
examined.
Secondly,
we
will
discuss
and
analyze
the
major
factors
affecting
Guyana’s
development
administration.
Thirdly,
some
policy
solutions
will
be
offered.
THE
STRUCTURE OF
DEVELOPMENT
ADMINISTRATION
IN
POST-
INDEPENDENCE
GUYANA
Development
administration
in
Guyana
was
shaped
by
the
British
during
their
period
of
colonial
rule
and
although,
after
independence
in
1966,
there
has
been
an
attempt
at
re-
organizing,
changing,
and
improving
the
entire
administrative
structure
to
function
effectively
in
the
service
of
an
independent
nation,
devel-
opment
administration
in
Guyana
still
remains
a
product
of
the
colonial
era,
maintaining
many
of
the
features
and
attitudes
of
the
former
colonial
establishment.
The
administration
of
development
in
Guyana
is
the
responsibility
of
the
Civil
Service
through
a
system
of
various
agencies
called
ministries.
Each
ministry
is
charged
with
the
task
of
implementing
the
government’s
planning
programs
for
which
it
was
created.
For
exam-
ple,
the
Ministry
of
Education
is
responsible
for
administering
programs
pertaining
to
education
throughout
Guyana.
In
1967,
a
Public
Service
Ministry
was
created.
This
was
the
major
institutional
con-
sequence
of
a
1966
United
Nations
Report
(2).
In
1968,
the
government
of
Guyana
appointed
a
Commission
to
inquire
into
and
make
re-
commendations
on
the
classification
and
re-
cruitment
of
public
servants,
and
the
principle
on
which
the
salaries
and
wages
of
public
servants
should
be
fixed
and
the
machinery
for
salary
and
wage
determination.
The
Com-
(1)
Merle
Fainsod,
"The
Structure
of
Develop-
ment
Administration ",
in
Irving
Swerdlow
(ed.),
Development
Administration:
Concepts
and
Problems
(Syracuse
University
Press,
1963),
p.
2.
*
The
author
is
indebted
to
Professors
E.A.
Bock
and
T.D.
Lynch,
of
the
Maxwell
School,
for
helpful
comments
on
an
earlier
draft.
- -
(2)
The
United
Nations
Report
on
Public
Adminis-
tration
in
Guyana
was
prepared
by
Messrs.
J.
Hunn
and
G.
Burgess
in
1966.
68
mission
Report
(3)
recommended
a
structure
of
unified
service
in
which
it
would
be
clear
that
a
worker’s
position
depended
on
his
cur-
rent
abilities
and
in
which
his
career
prospect
depended
solely
on
his
capacity
to
perform
jobs
in
the
Public
Service.
Since
the
inception
of
the
attempted
admin-
istrative
reform
program
in
1966
significant
technical
input
was
received
from
the
United
Nations
Development
Program
(UNDP)
(4).
However,
there
are
still
a
number
of
factors
affecting
development
administration
in
Guya-
na
and
these
are
discussed
in
the
next
section.
In
concluding
this
section,
it
is
necessary
that
we
briefly
indicate
the
evolution
of
the
system
of
development
administration
up
to
its
present
post-independence
state
in
Guyana
(5).
The
system
of
development
administration
in
Guyana
can
be
traced
to
have
evolved
in
four
basic
phases.
These
phases
manifest
themselves
in
the
historic
and
political
dimen-
sions
of
a
nation
striving
toward
economic
independence
and
reflect
the
simple
analytics
of
the
socio-economic
history
of
Guyana.
The
first
phase,
the
period
up
to
1850,
was
marked
by
an
almost
complete
subjugation
of
the
administrative
will
of
the
people.
What
existed
was
the
administration
of
a
colonial
sugar
plantation-type
economy
based
on
African
slave
labour
producing
for
export
to
Europe.
Administrative
functions,
the
main
intent
of
which
was
for
the
maintaining
of
this
type
of
system,
were
the
responsibility
of
the
Chief
Secretary
or
Colonial
Secretary.
The
second
phase,
from
1850
to
1953,
was
marked
by
political
awakening
and
the
re-
linquishing
of
some
of the
strings
by
the
metropolitan
power.
However,
the
adminis-
tration
of
development
remained
in
the
hands
of
expatriates
-
a
Governor
and
his
officials
-
who
were
accountable
only
to
the
British
government
and
monarchy,
and
were
primarily
concerned
with
their
future
careers
elsewhere
in
the
British
civil
service.
The
third
phase,
the
period
from
1953
to
1965,
began
as
a
backward
step
into
what
really
was
already
Crown
Colony
status.
How-
ever,
internal
self-government
was
granted
and
decision-making
and
executive
authority
was
transferred
from
the
Governor
and
his
Exe-
cutive
Council
to
the
Premier
and
his
Council
of
Ministers.
In
1966,
Guyana
became
a
politically
inde-
pendent
nation
and
the
fourth
phase
came
into
being.
This
fourth
phase
covers
the
period
from
1966
to
present
and
has
been
a
direct
attempt
-
though
slow,
grudging,
and
insuf-
ficient
-
at
creating
a
development
adminis-
tration
system
tailored
to
Guyana’s
needs
under
a
system
of
ministries
headed
by
a
native
cabinet
member,
called
a
Minister,
who
is
ap-
pointed
bv
the
Prime
Minister
(6).
Each
min-
- istry
is
staffed
with
a
Permanent
Secretary
who
is
the
Civil
Service
Head
of
the
ministry
and
principal
adviser
to
the
Minister.
The
Per-
manent
Secretary
has
administrative
respons-
ibility
for
the
entire
ministry,
including
respons-
ibility
for
all
personnel
and
matters
relating
to
finance.
FACTORS
AFFECTING
DEVELOPMENT
ADMINISTRATION
IN
GUYANA
The
administration
of
development
in
Guva-
na
has
always
had
some .
serious
drawbacks,
both
during
and
after
colonial
rule.
Despite
serious
attempts
after
independence
to
re-
structure
the
system
of
develonment
adminis-
tration
and
to
increase
its
effectiveness
and
impact,
there
still
exists
a
number
of
factors,
primarilv
a
legacy
of
the
colonial
past.
which
impede
the
process.
The
fundamental
factors
responsible
for
that
situation
are
as
follows.
Firstly,
there
is
a
general
lack
of
high-level
manpower
necessary
for
policy
implementation.
Here,
we
are
referring,
particularlv,
to
the
scarcity
of
trained
administrators.
No
lasting
and
significant
process
of
development
can
be
achieved
in
the
economy
of
Guyana,
or
any
developing
economy
for
that
matter,
unless
there
are
sufficient
human
skills
and
resources
present
in
the
economy
that
can
be
used
to
implement
and
therebv
assist
in
prolonging
the
development
cycle
(7).
The
lack
of
trained
administrators
in
Guyana
is
the
direct
result
of
three
f actors :
1)
chronic
brain
drain,
2)
poor
recruitment
policies,
3)
lack
of
proper
manpower
planning
and
assessment.
(3)
See
B.A.N.
Collins
et
al.,
The
Public
Service
of
Guyana :
A
Report
of
the
Commission
of
Inquiry
(Georgetown,
Guyana :
Government
Printery,
1969).
(4)
See
UNDP,
Country
and
Intercountry
Program-
ming
—
Guyana
(New
York :
UNDP,
1973).
(5)
For
a
more
general
discussion
of
this
evolution
as
it
pertains
to
the
entire
Caribbean
see
G.E.
Mills,
"
Public
Administration
in
the
Commonwealth
Carib-
bean :
Evolution,
Conflicts
and
Challenges
",
Social
and
Economic
Studies,
19
(March
1970),
pp.
5-25.
Special
number
edited
by
G.E.
Mills.
(6)
For
an
analysis
of
this
ministerial
system
in
Guyana,
see
M.K.
Bacchus,
" The
Ministerial
System
at
Work :
A
Case
Study
of
Guyana ",
Social
and
Economic
Studies
16
(March
1967),
pp.
34-56.
69
The
first
two
factors
were
brought
about
from
the
third.
The
lack
of
proper
manpower
planning
and
assessment
produced
haphazard
recruitment
policies,
underemployment
and
un-
employment,
and,
ultimately,
frustration
on
the
part
of
the
few
skilled
administrators
present
that
forced
them
to
emigrate.
Also,
there
exists
a
highly
bureaucratic
civil
service
and
excessive
centralization
of
authority
and
control.
The
excessive
centralization
of
authority
and
control
is
reflected
in
Permanent
Secretaries
and
Government
Ministers
assuming
overall
and
total
control
of
their
resdective
ministries
and
departments,
in
terms
of
deci-
sion-making,
and
playing
inadeauate
attention
to
middle
and
lower-level
civil
servants
or
giving
them
little
opportunity
to
participate
not
only
in
the
decision-making
process,
but
in
the
development
process
as
well.
This
situation
continues
to
be
perpetrated
because
Guyana’s
civil
service
has
become
an
institution
in
which
personnel
survival,
in
terms
of
longevity
of
service,
depends
on
political
af-
filiation
-
a
situation
which
does
not
conform
to
the
regulations
governing
the
non-political
nature
of
the
civil
service
(8).
The
ultimate
result
of
these
manifestations
is
a
lack
of
coordination
of
policies
among
departments
and
a
lack
of
dissemination
of
information
for
effective
decision-making.
In-
variably
then,
the
few
individuals
at
the
apex
of
the
decision-making
pyramid
are
hard
pressed
to
cope
with
the
range
of
decisions
they
have
to
make.
The
effect
is
necessarily
either
procrastination
and
long
delays,
or
in-
adequate
and
inept
policies.
It
is
clear that
the
centralized
nature
of
Guyana’s
civil
service
contributes
to
the
destruction
in
the
channels
of
communication
in
the
organization
and
tends
to
immobilize
development
administration.
After
independ-
ence
then,
the
bureaucratic
colonial-oriented
administration
was
transformed
into
a
bureau-
cratic
organization
that
emphasised
the
sover-
eignty
of
politics
rather
than
the
supremacy
of
administration.
Politics
became
the
most
important
activity
and
the
politician
(Minister)
and
his
usually
hand-picked
Permanent
Se-
cretary
came
to
occupy
a
position
of
un-
questionable
supremacy
in
matters
of
decision-
making
(9).
Another
factor
affecting
development
admin-
istration
in
Guyana
is
that
of
the
level
of
economic
development.
The
degree
of
eco-
nomic
development
and
the
state
of
develop-
ment
administration
are
closely
linked.
Rea-
sonably
good
development
administration
is
one
of
the
conditions
of
economic
development;
at
the
same
time
the
level
of
economic
develop-
ment
influences
the
level
of
administration.
In
Guyana,
the
level
of
economic
development
is
rather
low,
hampered
particularly
by
low
growth
of
agriculture,
weak
balance
of
pay-
ments
performance,
sluggish
private
invest-
ment,
and
persistent
high
unemployment.
For
the
past
two
decades,
real
growth
of
the
econo-
my
of
between
3
and
4
percent
annually,
barely
kept
pace
with
the
increase
in
popu-
lation.
At
low
levels
of
economic
development,
the
demand
for
efficiency
of
government
agencies
is
less
urgent.
The
rhythm
of
life
is
slower
and
things
move
in
set
patterns.
There
is
little
difference
between
the
ways
of
admin-
istration
and
the
ways
of
life
beyond
the
office
(10).
On
the
other
hand,
however,
higher
levels
of
economic
development
create
demands
on
the
efficiency
of
government
agencies
while
at
the
same
time
providing
the
input
to
allow
the
agencies
to
cope
with
the
increasingly
com-
plex
and
technical
tasks.
Administrative
sys-
tems
tend
to
grow
to
cope
with
the
developing
needs
of
a
modem
society
and
the
process
of
expansion
that
results.
Associated
with
the
inhibiting
factors
of
development
administration
in
Guyana
is
that
of
the
lack of
adequate
financial
resources
for
the
day-to-day
operations
of the
ministries.
This
is
a
direct
result
of
the,
already
discussed,
low
level
of
economic
development.
Extremely
small
budgets
have
affected
the
range
and
scope
of
the
operations
of
govern-
ment
agencies
and
ultimately
created
a
huge
(7)
Kempe
R.
Hope,
Wilfred
L.
David,
and
Aubrey
Armstrong,
"
Guyana’s
Second
Development
Plan
1972-1976 :
A
Macro-Economic
Assessment
",
World
Development
4
(February
1976),
p.
141.
(8)
To
make
participation
in
the
political
process
by
civil
servants
legal,
the
government
of
Guyana
has
recently
espoused
that
the
ruling
political
party
is
supreme
to
the
national
government
and
that there-
fore
implied
that
everyone
should
be
affiliated
to
a
political
party.
For
fear
of
reprisals,
the
majority
of
Guyana’s
civil
servants
are
currently
members
of
the
ruling
party,
the
People’s
National
Congress.
(9)
For
more
on
this
see
S.C.
Dube,
«
Bureaucracy
and
Nation-Building
in
Transitional
Societies
",
Inter-
national
Social
Science
Journal
16
(1964),
p.
233;
and
C.A.P.
St.
Hill,
" Towards
the
Reform
of
the
Public
Services :
Some
Problems
of
Transitional
Bureaucracies
in
Commonwealth
Caribbean
States
",
Social
and
Economic
Studies
19
(March
1970),
p.
143.
(10)
L.
Dabasi-Schweng,
" The
Influence
of
Eco-
nomic
Factors
"
in
M.
Kriesberg
(ed.),
Public
Admin-
istration
in
Developing
Countries
(Washington,
D.C. :
Brookings
Institution,
1965),
p.
21.
70
gap
between
planned
and
realized
development
targets.
With
low
operating
budgets,
govern-
ment
ministries
are
unable
to
procure
the
ne-
cessary
inputs
required
for
plan
implement-
ation.
Operating
budgets
are
low
because
the
government’s
total
revenue
available
for
devel-
opment
projects
is
low,
notwithstanding
the
fact,
also,
that
capital
inflows
from
traditional
sources,
such
as
the
World
Bank,
are
currently
limited
in
disbursement.
Disbursement
is
limited
because
of
the
low
absorptive
capacity
of
the
economy.
In
speaking
of
the
low
absorptive
capacity
of
the
economy,
we
are
referring
to
the
capital
absorptive
capacity
of
the
economy.
By
this
is
meant,
in
simplest
terms,
the
amount
of
capital
that
Guyana
can
use
productively
during
a
specific
time
period.
This
concept
should
not
be
confused
with
capital
formation
which
refers
both
to
the
sup-
ply
of
financial
resources
and
to
their
trans-
formation
into
real
capital
goods
(11).
The
significance
of
the
absorptive
capacity
concept
derives
from
the
generally
accepted
view
that
economic
growth,
though
fundamentally
a
func-
tion
of
the
volume
of
the
capital
used,
is
equally
determined
by
the
productivity
of
its
use
(12).
Budgets
play
crucial
roles
in
the
development
process
partly
because
of
their
importance
relative
to
the
other
operations
in
most
developing
nations
and
partly
because
they
entail
a
compulsory
and
direct
transfer
of
resources.
Of
major
significance
among
the
factors
af-
fecting
development
administration
in
Guvana
is
that
of
the
lack
of
the
political
leadership’s
total
support
for
the
improvement
of
the
nation’s
administrative
system.
Administrative
change
inevitably
involves
challenge
to
accept-
ed
modes
of
action
and
to
traditional
values
and
prerogatives
(13).
Projects
for
adminis-
trative
reform,
if
they
are
other
than
routine
and
minor,
must
be backed
fully
by
the
Prime
Minister
and
his
Cabinet.
In
speaking
of
the
vital
importance
of
leadership
here,
we
are
alluding
to
the
critical
place
of
authority
in
national
development.
If
political
leaders
are
to
inspire
a
population
and
to
direct
the
bu-
reaucracy
to
higher
levels
of
performance
and
development,
their
words
and
actions
must
carry
an
aura
of
legitimacy
(14).
Historically,
political
leaders
in
Guyana
have
been
primarily
concerned
with
maintaining
their
own
existence
as
politicians
and
this
resulted
in
much
con-
fusion
between
the
administrative
and
political
function
in
decision-making
processes
and
also
in
the
creation
of
political
elites.
Elites
who
among
themselves
alone
cannot
execute
the
services
and
achieve
developmental
goals.
SOME
SUGGESTIONS
FOR
IMPROVING
DEVELOPMENT
ADMINISTRATION
IN
GUYANA
From
the
foregoing
discussion,
it
is
obvious
that
in
Guyana
administrative
reforms
are
ne-
cessary
so
as
to
make
administration
a
fit
instrument
for
carrying
out
social
and
economic
policies
and
achieving
socio-economic
goals
of
development.
The
administrative
changes
which
are
necessary
must
be
different
from
the
conventional
organizational
reforms,
given
Guyana’s
commitment
to
development
through
&dquo;cooperative
socialism &dquo;
(15).
Thus,
western
concepts
applied
in
the
interest
of
development
administration
cannot
be
introduced
into
the
administrative
system
in
Guyana. Hence,
all
of
the
remaining
attitudes,
features,
and
char-
acteristics
of
the
colonial
Civil
Service
need
to
be
urgently
eradicated
through
processes
of
re-education
and
re-orientation
to
bring
the
native
civil
servants
in line
with
the
current
development
thrust.
This
process
of
re-
education
and
re-orientation
can
be
easily
ef-
fected
through
government
organized
and
spon-
sored
seminars
or
workshops.
This
brings
us
then
to
the
necessity
for
training
in
Guyana.
Apart
from
the
removal
of
the
continued
existence
of the
colonial
mentality,
education
and
training
is
necessary
to
create
a
stock
of
trained
administrators.
This
therefore
means
an
attempt
at
proper
manpower
planning
and
assessment.
Man-
power
planning
and
assessment
go
far
beyond
tabulation
of
supply
and
demand
indices
of
the
labour
force.
It
must
take
into
consider-
ation
the
broad
spectrum
of
problems
of
human
resources
development.
Planning
and
assess-
(11)
For
a
satisfying
discussion
of
the
differences
between
these
two
concepts,
see
Willy
J.
Stevens,
Capital
Absorptive
Capacity
in
Developing
Countries
(Leiden :
Sijthoff,
1971).
(12)
See
Hollis
Chenery
and
A.M.
Strout,
"
Foreign
Assistance
and
Economic
Development ",
American
Economic
Review
66
(September
1966),
pp.
679-733.
(13)
John
C.
Honey,
Toward
Strategies
for
Public
Administration
Development
in
Latin
America
(Syracuse
University
Press,
1968),
p.
69.
(14)
Kempe
R.
Hope,
"
Guyana’s
National
Service
Programme
",
Journal
of
Administration
Overseas
15
(January
1976),
p.
37.
(15)
For
an
analysis
of
this
approach
to
develop-
ment
in
Guyana,
see
Kempe
R.
Hope,
" A
Note
on
Cooperative
Socialism
in
Guyana ",
Annals
of
Public
and
Cooperative
Economy
44
(July-September
1973),
pp.
233-240;
and
also
Kempe
R.
Hope,
"
Co-
operative
Socialism
and
the
Cooperative,
Movement
in
Guyana
",
Review
of
International
Cooperation
68,
No. 2
(1975),
pp.
56-65.
71
ment
of
manpower
should
be
a
part
of
the
development
plan
of
any
developing
country,
and
should
be
coordinated
with
education
plan-
ning
and
training.
In
Guyana,
manpower
plan-
ning
is
of
vital
necessity,
but
has
always
been
a
shortcoming
of
post-independence
develop-
ment
planning
in
the
economy.
This
short-
coming
manifests
itself
in
the
negligence
or
unconcern
of
the
government
and,
to
a
lesser
degree,
in
the
lack
of
the
qualitative
and
quantitative
techniques
necessary
for
such
plan-
ning.
Training
and
education
will,
undoubtedly,
increase
the
quality
of
Guyana’s
development
administrators
-
both
politicians
and
career
civil
servants.
Since
the
quality
of
develop-
ment
administration
and
public
decision-
making
depends
largely
on
the
quality
of
the
policy-makers
(16),
then
education
and
training
will
indirectly
increase
the
quality
of
develop-
ment
administration
in
Guyana.
Development
administration
in
Guyana
has
been
consistently
plagued
with
the
tendency
toward
excessive
centralization.
As
mentioned
earlier
in
this
paper,
the
problem
is
expressed
in
the
reluctance
of
Ministers
and
their
Per-
manent
Secretaries
to
delegate
authority.
In-
security
seems
to
be
the
major
motivating
force
and
centralized
authority
is
maintained
under
the
banner
of
political
sovereignty
and
un-
questionable
supremacy.
What
seems
not
to
be
understood
is
that
this
phenomenon
creates
lags
in
the
administration
of
development
and
attempts
should
be
made
at
attaining
and
maintaining
a
proper
balance
between
the
con-
tributions
to
the
quality
of
decision-making
by
the
various
units
participating
in
that
process.
Quite
recently
it
was
alleged
that
the
Minister
of
Finance,
for
one
reason
or
the
other,
with-
held
information
of
some
pertinence
from
the
Ministry
of
Economic
Development,
thus
af-
fecting
important
policy
decisions
on
matters
of
national
economic
significance
with
which
the
latter
Ministry
is
responsible
(17).
Here
again,
is
a
vivid
example,
as
exhibited
by
the
Minister
of
Finance,
that
Guyana’s
politicians
do
not
understand
that
their
contribution
to
public
policy-making
should
be
primarily
limited
to
the
extra-rationality
components
such
as
a
feeling
for
what
the
populace
will
stand.
On
the
other
hand,
the
contribution
of
civil
servants
to
the
decision-making
process
invol-
ves
professional
knowledge,
scientific
data
pro-
cessing
and
analysis,
and
systematic
search
for
alternatives.
Undoubtedly,
excessive
centralization
will
be
a
long-standing
phenomenon
in
Guyana,
given
the
political
nature
of
things.
Civil
servants
currently
carry
out
the
decisions
made
by
politicians,
thus
rejecting
their
own
professional
duty
to
advise.
They
cling
to
the
privileges
and
security
of
their
positions
without
making
a
serious
attempt
to
contribute
to
the
quality
of
public
policy.
Primarily
what
is
needed
is
a
role
definition
of
the
political
part
of
civil
servants
in
the
administration
of
development
and
not
in
national
politics
as
has
been
advo-
cated.
With
that
reference
point
civil
servants
will
have
reason
to
be
secure
and
assert
them-
selves
in
the
process
of
administering
develop-
ment.
It
has
been
recognized,
before
this
piece
of
work,
that &dquo;
if
Guyana
is
to
fulfill
the
expectations
of
its
people,
if
the
visions
of
its
leaders
are
to
become
realities,
the
effective-
ness
of
the
Public
Service
will
be
all
im-
portant.
Such
a
Public
Service
must ...
be
politically
non-partisan,
financially
contented,
and
confident
in
its
competence &dquo;
(18).
Decentralizing
the
administrative
machinery
would
also
serve
to
improve
communication
channels
and
the
level
of
coordination
both
within
and
among
various
departments.
The
dissemination
of
data
and
information
is
vital
to
a
successful
development
effort
and
even
more
so
in
Guyana’s
case
because
of
the
pau-
city
of
data.
Improved
coordination
would
tend
to
remove
the
time-consuming,
energy-
wasting,
and
patience-exhausting
checks
and
counter-checks,
references
and
cross-references,
conferences
and
consultations,
often
at
the
wrong
levels
and
about
unimportant
matters.
It
is
very
timely
now
to
focus
our
attention
on
the
need
for
accelerating
the
economic
development
process
in
Guyana.
Apart
from
the
obvious
need
and
advantages
of
economic
growth,
within
the
context
of
this
paper,
it
influences
the
level
of
the
administrative
ma-
chinery.
Government
machinery
and
its
oper-
ations
are
of
the
greatest
consequence
in
devel-
oping
countries,
and
the
success
or
failure
of
that
machinery
hinges
on
the
effectiveness
of
the
development
effort.
Increasing
levels
of
(16)
Moshe
Weiss,
" Some
Suggestions
for
Improv-
ing
Development
Administration
",
International
Re-
view
of
Administrative
Sciences
32,
No.
3 (1966),
p.
194;
see
also
the
well
organized
papers
in
Irving
Swerdlow
and
Marcus
Ingle
(eds.),
Public
Adminis-
tration
Training
for
the
Less
Developed
Countries
(Maxwell
School
of
Citizenship
and
Public
Affairs,
Syracuse
University,
1974).
(17)
Information
obtained
in
interviews
with
officials
of
the
Ministry
of
Economic
Development
in
George-
town,
Guyana.
(18)
B.A.N.
Collins
et
al.,
The
Public
Service
of
Guyana: A
Report
of
the
Commission
of
Inquiry,
p.
82.
72
economic
development
would
indicate
the
need
for
increasing
levels
of
development
adminis-
tration
which
in
turn
influences
the
impact
of
development
planning
-
since
the
secret
of
successful
development
planning
lies
not
only
in
sensible
politics
but
in
good
public
administration
also
(19).
Moreover,
higher
levels
of
economic
devel-
opment
do
result
in
more
revenue
being
avail-
able
for
the
implementation
of
development
projects
and
it
also
tends
to
increase
the
absorptive
capacity
of
the
country.
With
more
readily
available
financial
resources,
govern-
ment
budgets
can
be
properly
augmented
and
the
necessary
inputs
required
for
administering
the
development
effort
can
be
acquired.
Budgets
play
crucial
roles
in
the
develop-
ment
administration
process
because
they
entail
a
compulsory
and
direct
transfer
of
resources.
In
Guyana,
it
became
increasingly
recognized
that
the
budgets
of
the
various
ministries
were
limited
in
their
ability
to
achieve
administra-
tive
goals
because
of
their
limited
size
vis-a-vis
development
projects.
Hence,
it
is
very
im-
portant
that
the
budget
reflect
the
relative
levels
of
resource
allocation
and
capital
form-
ation
to
be
achieved
in
the
economy
with
respect
to
the
existing
revenue
available.
Finally,
the
development
administration
ma-
chinery
in
Guyana
can
be
best
improved
through
that
most
vital
and
important
factor
of
all :
the influence
of
the
political
leadership.
The
role
of
the
political
leadership
is
indeed
the
most
crucial
factor
to
be
ascertained
in
the
process
of
national
development
(20),
and
hence
in
the
improvement
in
the
administration
of
development.
Political
leadership
is
the
arbiter
of,
rather
than
one
participant
or
factor
among
many
in,
the
process
of
national
devel-
opment.
In
Guyana,
as
mentioned
before,
the
lack
of
the
political
leadership’s
role
in
support
of
administrative
change
can
be
traced
to
have
resulted
from
their
own
concern
for
maintaining
their
elite
status
and
authority.
An
elite
status
and
authority
so
crisply
controlled
that
it
is
difficult
for
society
to
penetrate.
Lending
support
to
administrative
change
and
reform
requires,
therefore,
commitment
on
the
part
of
the
political
leadership.
Commit-
ment
here
involves
an
overriding
desire
to
promote
rationality,
rise
of
productivity,
social
and
economic
equalization,
improved
institu-
tions
and
attitudes.
All
of these
aspects
of
national
development
combined
will
hopefully
produce
the
administrative
machinery
needed
while
at
the
same
time
generating
further
change.
The
promotion
of
these
ideals
points
toward
modernization
and
is
directly
opposed
to
the
desire
for
the
maintenance
of
the
status
quo
in
Guyana.
Not
only
should
the
political
leadership
be
committed
to
these
ideals
in
the
interest
of
a
just
society
and
better
develop-
ment
administration
but
it
should
also
be
resol-
ute
enough
to
recognize
such
actions
as
help-
ful
in
resolving
its
identity
crisis.
-
CONCLUSION
The
administration
of
development
in
Guya-
na,
after
independence,
is
still
a
legacy
of
the
colonial
past.
The
colonial
political
system
was
a
mere
bureaucratic
system.
It
was
cen-
tralized
and
no
separate
institution
for
political
and
administrative
functions
existed.
This
created
a
blurred
distinction
between
the
&dquo;
ad-
ministrative
&dquo;
and
the
&dquo;
political &dquo;
and
the
result
was
obviously
a
highly
politicized
bureau-
cracy.
Policy
was
largely
formulated
and
im-
plemented
by
the
same
people
-
the
Governor
and
his
chosen
subordinates
(21).
In
Guyana
today,
a
similar
situation
exists.
The
bureau-
cratic
colonial
administration
having
now
been
replaced
by
native
politicians
who
also
exercise
centralized
authority
and
control.
Politics
is
now
the
order
of
the
day
and
the
development
administration
machinery
is
in
a
state
of
inept-
ness.
Development
administration,
however,
is
a
process.
It
is
a
process
that
can
be
instituted
at
any
point
in
time
-
no
matter
how
late
that
may
be.
This
paper
has
pointed
out
some
of
the
steps
that
can
be
taken
for
improving
the
administrative
structure
and
the
decision-
making
process.
Hopefully,
if
adopted,
they
will
serve
to
complement
those
actions
that
were
taken
shortly
after
independence
was
achieved
in
Guyana,
but
were
abruptly
forsa-
ken.
(19)
W.
Arthur
Lewis,
Development
Planning
(Lon-
don :
Allen
and
Unwin
Ltd.,
1966),
Preface.
(20)
T.
Tsurutani,
The
Politics
of
National
Develop-
ment
(New
York :
Chandler,
1973),
p.
25.
(21)
Edwin
Jones,
" Tendencies
and
Change
in
Caribbean
Administrative
Systems
",
Social
and
Eco-
nomic
Studies
24
(June
1975),
p.
240.
Article
This article examines the long struggle for a merit-based civil service in the Dominican Republic. That nation's historical and administrative heritage, along with economic and policy considerations, have conspired to defeat merit-based reform efforts. The Dominican case is used to consider the relevancy of merit-based civil service in developing countries generally. A conclusion is that while the Dominican Republic has an unusual administrative and political history in Latin America and the Caribbean, and while serious obstacles remain, rapid social, political, and economic changes since 1965 have made the country more receptive to merit practices.
Article
Full-text available
This study offers a broad overview of the urbanization dilemma in the Third World — within the context of elusive development — with particular attention to its current trends, components, consequences and policies to manage it.
Article
Full-text available
The conduct of development administration in Commonwealth Caribbean countries is hindered by weaknesses in government, and, on the basis of many years experience, Dr. Hope points to four approaches to reform which are currently favoured. Changing the nature of political leadership; reasserting the importance of an independent instrumental administration through greater attention to manpower planning, training and staff development; similarly extending the scope of administrative action by achieving a decentralization of authority from political ministers to local professional administators acting with the public; and participatory democracy with a reduced role for professional administration are four approaches with parallels in other parts of the world. The author points, however, to distinctive features in the Caribbean and argues that the small size of the states creates particular problems and challenges.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.