ABSTRACT
In a footnote in his recent work on Politics and Social Science, W. J. M. Mackenzie dismisses the validity of the need to consider development administration as a separate set of questions, despite the rapid increase of work apparently devoted to the matters. There was a sufficient feeling of agreement, newness and promise to lead B. H. Liddell Hart and P. Meadows, in their volume on Directed Social Change, which was an attempt to produce both a reader and an annotated bibliography, to refer explicitly to development administration as ‘the fascinating though capricious new field of entrepreneurial thought’. One would say that development administration, in comparison with public administration, requires a new approach to institution building and to information and communication processes and a more continuing emphasis on evaluation, implementation and innovation in public action. Meeting those requirements clearly requires more field work and research than has yet been done.
