ABSTRACT
Two decades have elapsed since Riggs identified public administration as “a neglected factor in economic development” and alerted us to the interdependent relationship between economic development and administrative improvement. Yet, the more the field that has come to be called “development administration” is studied, the more we realize how little is really known about it. It is not known with certainty what will bring about administrative changes, whether particular changes constitute improvement, which administrative developments facilitate economic development, or how to measure administrative development. Various activities sponsored by the Public Administration Division of the United Nations Secretariat have attempted to develop indicators for strengthened development administration. In assessing the performance requirements of national administration, well over one-half of the Indonesians, Filipinos, and Thais emphasize instrumental matters. Korean assessments of the most important requirements for administering national programs diverge sharply from the other countries. Training and professional involvement make little difference in the predominant concerns of rice program officials.
