Advertisement

The administration of economic development planning: Principles and fallacies

  • Bertram M. Gross
Article
  • 59 Downloads

Keywords

Central Government Development Planning Comparative International Development Planning Agency National Leader 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    A. J. Toynbee,America and the World Revolution (New York and London: Oxford University Press, 1962), p. 3.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    This subject is discussed in greater detail in “The State of the Nation: Social Systems Accounting” by B. Gross in R. A. Bauer (ed.),Social Indicators (Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1966) andSpace-Time and Post-Industrialism by B. Gross CAG Occasional Paper, 1966.Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    A. Waterston,Development Planning: Lessons of Experience (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1965), pp. 293, 296.Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    United Nations, “Problems and Policies in the Development Decade,” chapter 1 inWorld Economic Survey, 1964 (Sales No.: 65.11.C.2), p. 8.Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    United Nations,Report of the Conference of Asian Economic Planners, Bangkok, 1964 (E/CN.11/673), p. 3.Google Scholar
  6. 7.
    Empirically-oriented studies of Asian planning: A. H. Hanson,The Process of Planning: A Study of India’s Five Year Plans, 1950–1964 (London: Oxford University Press, 1966); Mahbub U1 Haq,Strategy of Economic Planning: A Case Study of Pakistan (Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1963); John P. Lewis,Quiet Crisis in India (Washington: Brookings Institution, 1962); Louis J. Walinsky,Economic Development in Burma, 1951–1960 (New York: Twentieth Century Fund, 1962); and Albert Waterston,Planning in Pakistan (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1963), andDevelopment Planning: Lessons of Experience (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1965). The National Planning Series of the Syracuse University Press published the following volumes in 1965 and 1966: John Friedmann,Venezuela: From Doctrine to Dialogue; Douglas E. Ashford,Morocco-Tunisia: Politics and Planning; Fred G. Burke,Tanganyika: Preplanning; Robert J. Shafer,Mexico: Mutual Adjustment Planning; Benjamin Akzin and Yehezkel Dror,Israel: High Pressure Planning; Everett E. Hagen and Stephanie F. T. White,Britain: Quiet Revolution in Planning; and Joseph LaPalombara,Italy: The Politics of Planning.Google Scholar
  7. 8.
    H. Simon,Administrative Behavior (New York: Macmillan, 1947), p. xiv. The contributions of the early pioneers, including Max Weber, and the new approaches developed by Simon and many others are summarized in “The Pioneers: The Gospel of Efficiency” (chapter 6) and “The Pioneers: New Beginnings” (chapter 7) in B. Gross,The Managing of Organizations, 2 vols. (New York: Free Press, 1964).Google Scholar
  8. 9.
    Victor Thompson has pointed out the inadequacies of this equation inModern Organization (New York: Knopf, 1961).Google Scholar
  9. 10.
    B. Gross (ed),Action Under Planning: Essays in Guided Economic Development (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966).Google Scholar
  10. 11.
    B. Gross, “National Planning: Findings and Fallacies”,Public Administration Review, December 1965, pp. 263–273.Google Scholar
  11. 12.
    B. Gross, “What Are Your Organization’s Objectives? A General Systems Approach to Planning,”Human Relations, August 1965, pp. 195–216.Google Scholar
  12. 13.
    B. Gross, “The State of the Nation: Social Systems Accounting,” in R. A. Bauer (ed.),Social Indicators, (Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1966), and published separately by Tavistock Publications, London (in press). Popular applications of the social systems approach to national planning in the United States are outlined in B. Gross, “The Social State of the Union,”Trans-action, November/December 1965, pp. 14–17, and “Lets Have aReal State of the Union Message,”Challenge, May/June 1966.Google Scholar
  13. 15.
    B. Gross,The Managing of Organizations, pp. 315–316.Google Scholar
  14. 17.
    This point is developed in B. Gross, “National Planning: Findings and Fallacies.”Google Scholar
  15. 18.
    R. J. Shafer,et al., “What Is National Planning?,” in B. Gross (ed.),Action Under Planning.Google Scholar
  16. 19.
    B. Gross, “The State of the Nation”.Google Scholar
  17. 20.
    Ibid., B. Gross, “The State of the Nation”, part I.Google Scholar
  18. 21.
    B. Gross,The Managing of Organizations, p. 242.Google Scholar
  19. 22.
    B. Gross,The Managing of Organizations.Google Scholar
  20. 23.
    Administration of National Development Planning, Report of a Meeting of Experts held at Paris, France, 8–19 June 1964 (United Nations document, ST/TAO/M/27), p. 5.Google Scholar
  21. 24.
    B. Russett,Trends in World Politics (New York: Macmillan, 1965), p. 121.Google Scholar
  22. 25.
    B. Gross,Space-Time and Post-Industrialism, pp. 45–46.Google Scholar
  23. 26.
    B. Gross,Space-Time and Post-Industrialism. See also the sections on “From Pre- to Post-Industrialism” and “Industrializing and Post-Industrializing Performance Patterns” in B. Gross, “The State of the Nation.”Google Scholar
  24. 27.
    “Epiphenomenal planning” is a term first used by Peter Wiles inThe Political Economy of Communism (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1962), pp. 72–75.Google Scholar
  25. 28.
    C. E. Lindblom, “The Science of Muddling Through,”Public Administration Review, Vol. XIX, No. 1, Spring 1948, pp. 79–88.Google Scholar
  26. 29.
    B. Gross, “The Gamestnanship of National Planning,” prefatory comment to Fred G. Burke,Tanganyika: Preplanning (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1965), pp. xxviii-xxix.Google Scholar
  27. 30.
    This criticism has been made by many authors, including Marx, Schweitzer, Orwell, Mumford, Huxley, Kafka, William H. Whyte, Fromm, Argyris, and Marcuse. Their views have been briefly summarized in “Threats to Mankind,” chapter 4 inThe Managing of Organizations.Google Scholar
  28. 31.
    B. Gross, “Activating National Plans,” in B. Gross (ed.),Action Under Planning.Google Scholar
  29. 32.
    W. S. Woytinsky and E. S. Woytinsky,World Population and Production (New York: Twentieth Century Fund, 1956), p. 931.Google Scholar
  30. 33.
    B. Higgins,Economic Development (New York: Norton, 1959), p. 244.Google Scholar
  31. 34.
    K. Nair,Blossoms in the Dust (New York: Praeger, 1962), p. 193.Google Scholar
  32. 35.
    G. Myrdal,The Political Element in the Development of Economic Theory (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1954).Google Scholar
  33. 36.
    The rest of this section is based upon “Activating National Plans,” in B. Gross (ed.),Action Under Planning.Google Scholar
  34. 37.
    The term “cross-sectoral” is based upon the proposition that national economic planning usually consists of some combination of five kinds of planning: aggregate, cross-sectoral, sectoral or subsectoral, enterprise, and spatial. See “What is National Planning?,” B. Gross (ed.),Action Under Planning.Google Scholar
  35. 38.
    B. Gross,The Managing of Organizations, p. 355.Google Scholar
  36. 39.
    B. Gross, “National Planning: Findings and Fallacies,” p. 267.Google Scholar
  37. 40.
    L. Curric,Accelerating Development: The Necessity and the Means (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966).Google Scholar
  38. 42.
    “Activating National Plans,” B. Gross (ed.),Action Under Planning.Google Scholar
  39. 43.
    J. Currie,Accelerating Development, p. 7.Google Scholar
  40. 44.
    I. Swerdlow, “Economics as Part of Development Administration” in I. Swerdlow (ed.),Development Administration: Concepts and Problems (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1963), p. 103.Google Scholar
  41. 45.
    A. Waterston,Development Planning, p. 201Google Scholar
  42. 47.
    Quoted by Charles L. Schultze, Director, Bureau of the Budget, in his foreword to D. Novick (ed.),Program Budgeting (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1965).Google Scholar
  43. 48.
    See B. Gross,The Managing of Organizations: (a) on benefits in “Satisfaction of Interests” (chapter 20); (b) on output in “Output: Services and Goods,” “Output: Quality and Quantity,” and “Output: Operations and Functions” (chapters 21, 22, and 23); and (c) on costs in “Efficiency and Profitability” (chapter 24).Google Scholar
  44. 49.
    A. Waterston,Development Planning, p. 325.Google Scholar
  45. 50.
    L. J. Walinsky,The Planning and Execution of Economic Development (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963), p. 73.Google Scholar
  46. 52.
    A. Waterston,Development Planning, p. 354.Google Scholar
  47. 53.
    Ibid. A. Waterston,Development Planning, p. 354.Google Scholar
  48. 54.
    Ibid. A. Waterston,Development Planning, p. 354.Google Scholar
  49. 55.
    A. Waterston,Development Planning, p. 353.Google Scholar
  50. 56.
    C. E. Lindblom, “Economics and the Administration of National Planning,”Public Administration Review, December 1965.Google Scholar
  51. 57.
    N. I. Kovalev, “The Problems in Introducing Mathematics and Electronic Computers in Planning,”Problems of Economics, Vol. 5, No. 4, August 1962.Google Scholar
  52. 58.
    R. A. Bauer (ed.),Social Indicators, Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press 1966.Google Scholar
  53. 59.
    O. Morgenstern,The Accuracy of Economic Observations (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963).Google Scholar
  54. 60.
    A. Waterston,Development Planning, pp. 191–192.Google Scholar
  55. 62.
    A. Waterston,Development Planning, pp. 194–195.Google Scholar
  56. 63.
    The nature of such planning reports by a chief executive is touched upon in B. Gross, “The State of the Nation”, and developed in greater detail, with special reference to one country only, in B. Gross, “Let’s Have aReal State of the Union Message,”Challenge, May/June 1966.Google Scholar
  57. 65.
    International Group for Studies in National Planning (INTERPLAN),The Development of National Planning Persomel: a preliminary report based on the April 1965 conference of INTERPLAN in Warsaw, Poland.Google Scholar
  58. 67.
    B. Gross, “The Managers of National Economic Change,” in R. C. Martin (ed.),Public Administration and Democracy: Essays in Honor of Paul H. Appleby (Syracuse; Syracuse University Press, 1965), pp. 115–116.Google Scholar
  59. 68.
    See V. Thompson,Modern Organization, pp. 10, 95, for a discussion of the “primitive monistic ideal” that allows adults in organizations to duplicate childhood experiences—subordination to, and dependence on, an all-powerful parent. This subject is also discussed in B. Gross,The Managing of Organizations, “The Dispersion of Power in Organizations,” chapter 3, pp. 49–72.Google Scholar
  60. 69.
    B. Gross, “The Managers of National Economic Change,” p. 109.Google Scholar
  61. 70.
    Ibid., B. Gross, “The Managers of National Economic Change,” p. 114.Google Scholar
  62. 71.
    For the fallacies in the capital-output approach to development, which is still the “conventional wisdom” among economists, see L. Currie in “The Capital Formation Approach,” chapter 9,Accelerating Development.Google Scholar
  63. 72.
    See particularly Theodore Schultz, “Investment in Human Capital,”American Economical Review, Vol. 68, 1961, pp. 1–17.Google Scholar
  64. 73.
    B. Gross, “Activating National Plans,” in B. Gross (ed.),Action Under Planning.Google Scholar
  65. 74.
    Ibid. B. Gross, “Activating National Plans,” in B. Gross (ed.),Action Under Planning.Google Scholar
  66. 75.
    A. H. Rweyemarnu,Nation-Building and the Planning Processes in Tanzania, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, 1965, pp. 95, 241.Google Scholar
  67. 76.
    B. Gross,The Managing of Organizations, “People-in-Organizations: Formal Aspects,” chapter 15, p. 385.Google Scholar
  68. 78.
    The importance of coordination through mutual adjustment in many forms has been analyzed by C. E. Lindblom in his recent book—of tremendous interest to national planners—The Intelligence of Democracy (New York: Free Press, 1965).Google Scholar
  69. 79.
    The importance of dealing with intergovernmental relations at the local level is illustrated by L. C. Fitch, (Planning and Administration in Urban Areas,” in the United Nations publicationAdministration of National Development Planning, part II, chapter II.Google Scholar
  70. 80.
    Ibid., The importance of dealing with intergovernmental relations at the local level is illustrated by L. C. Fitch, (Planning and Administration in Urban Areas,” in the United Nations publicationAdministration of National Development Planning, part II, chapter II, para. 35.Google Scholar
  71. 81.
    The limitations of the old-fashioned style of so-called master planning at the local level are dealt with in greater detail in B. Gross, “The City of Man: A Social Systems Approach,” given at the annual conference of the American Institute of Planners, Portland, Oregon, August 16, 1966.Google Scholar
  72. 82.
    More specific suggestions concerning the contents of annual “state of the area reports” are provided in both B. Gross, “The City of Man: A Social Systems Approach,” and B. Gross, “The State of the Nation.”Google Scholar
  73. 83.
    For a detailed rebuttal of the idea that a comprehensive approach can be strategic and a convincing presentation of the selective nature of strategy, see R. A. Anthony,Planning and Control Systems (Boston: Harvard Business School, 1965).Google Scholar
  74. 84.
    L. Currie, Accelerating Development, p. 53.Google Scholar
  75. 85.
    For a humanistic analysis of the potentialities of urban areas, see Harvey Cox,The Secular City (New York: Macmillan, 1965).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 1967

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bertram M. Gross
    • 1
  1. 1.Maxwell Graduate School of Citizenship and Public AffairsSyracuse UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations