Political versus Administration Development

Abstract

A conflict in political science of 25 years' duration revolves around the relationship of bureaucratic development to political development. One school argues that in the presence of weak political systems, it is necessary to strengthen the bureaucracy if economic development is to occur. Another school argues that while bureaucratic institutions must be strengthened to promote economic development, it is necessary also to strengthen political institutions to control the tendency of bureaucrats to promote their own interests in the absence of political control. Nigeria's period of military rule, 1966-1979, provides a test for the two positions. Under military rule, the civil service became extremely powerful. controlled only slightly by the uncertain policies of military rulers. Untrammeled by political control, and favored with a bonanza of oil money, the bureaucracy should have demonstrated considerable economic development, if one school is correct. The opposite school said an uncontrolled bureaucracy would promote its own, rather than the national, interest. This article marshals evidence that the bureaucracy of 1966-1979 did not promote economic development that could be attributed to the bureaucracy. and indeed pursued policies that enhanced the bureaucracy rather than Nigeria. Further evidence is presented that shows that the period of uncontrolled bureaucratic power actually weakened any measurable political development, as revealed in the events after 1979. The Nigerian experience supports the position that political institutions must be strengthened at the same time bureaucratic institutions are being strengthened.