1. See my “Failure of Technical Assistance in Public Administration Abroad, A Personal Note,”Journal of Comparative Administration, 2(May 1970), especially pp. 20–25.
2. I discussed this matter at some length in my draft paper, “Emerging Conceptions and Patterns of Development Assistance: Implications of President Nixon’s September 1970 Message to Congress,” Fort Collins: Department of Political Science, Colorado State University, 1971 (processed). For other reference see Alvin Gouldner, “The Norm of Reciprocity,”American Sociological Review)25 (April 1960), 161–79; Neil Smelser,Theory of Collective Behavior(New York: The Free Press, 1962); Marcel Mauss,The Gift) Forms and Functions of Exchange in Archaic Societies)translated by Ian Cunnison (London: Cohen and West, 1954); Cyril S. Belshaw,Traditional Exchange and Modern Markets(Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1965); Helen Codere, “Exchange and Display” in David L. Sills (ed.),International Encyclopedia of Social Science(New York: The MacMillan Co. and The Free Press, 1968), volume 5, 239–45; J. M. Buchanan, “What Should Economists Do 1”Southern Economic Journal)30 (January 1964), especially pp. 220–21; Gustav Cassel,The Theory of Social Economy)translated by S. L. Barron (New York: Revised Edition, A. M. Kelley, 1967); and Joseph J. Spengler, “Allocation and Development, Economic and Political,” in Ralph Brabanti (ed.),Political and Administrative Development(Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1969), especially 632–37. The only study that I have found that treats foreign aid within this design is by Kenneth J. Gergen,The Psychology of Behavior Exchange(Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1969), 77–82.
3. This was one of the basic assertions of the influential statement of the National Planning Association which provided much of the reason for the new design of President Nixon’s proposal for reorganization of the United State’s development assistance. See A Joint Statement by the NPA Joint Subcommittee on U.S. Foreign Aid and the NPA Board of Trustees and Standing Committees,A New Conception of u.s. Foreign Aid)Special Report No. 64 (Washington National Planning Association, 1969), see especially 6et seq.
4. Probably no single factor shapes AID bureaucratic behavior so strongly as the performance evaluation report. This report is carefully structured and follows essentially the basic traits of the traditional foreign service form. For example, note item 21 of performance evaluation report, AID 4–98 (19–65), identifies “negotiating ability.” In the area of development assistance I cannot see why any emphasis should be given to this ability, but it certainly is underscored for the higher ranked officers. The consequence, if not the intent, is to regard counterparts of the recipient nations as political opponents who should be held at arms length. “Toughness” is a premium quality in the AID ethos. Nowhere in the performance evaluation report is the trait of service or helping capacity clearly identified which is the real meaning of development assistance. A· valuable contribution would· be an in-depth stUdy of the detrimental· consequences of bureaucratic conformity perpetuated by such a rigidly designed performance evaluation report. On this point Bertram M. Gross offers some guidelines in his monumental study,Organizations and Their Managing(New York: The Free Press, 1968), 409–11.
5. This is discussed to some length in myPlanned Organizational Change) A Study in Change Dynamics(New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1969), especially 90–108.