Comparative political analysis dates back to Aristotle, who classified types of states as a means of deriving generalizations. For Latin Americanists, there exists an enduring tension between the desire for problem-specific case studies and the seductiveness of hemispheric conceptualizations. Linn A. Hammergren has provided an admirable balance in her investigation of administrative reform. Separate but truly comparative studies of Peru, Venezuela, and Colombia have been so designed as to illuminate each system while providing bases for broader theoretical statements.
During the 1950s and 1960s, administrative reform was regarded as a crucial element in developmental strategies. Mixed results led to skepticism over the enterprise and, as we are reminded at the outset, a “rejection of the concept of administrative reform is nowhere more complete than in the field of development administration” (p. 1). At the same time, a series of misconceptions were drawn from the early reformist years; these are effectively summarized and challenged (pp. 32-36). The author makes her case for reversing the contemporary bias which suggests that administrative reform is not germane to Latin America today.
The heart of Hammergren’s empirical inquiry constitutes her treatment of the three countries in question. Authorities on each system will find her narrative crisp, informative, and coherent. The analyses, which have 1979 as the cutoff point, are balanced and thoughtful. Despite systemic distinctions, there are more parallels between Peru and Venezuela, as contrasted with Colombia. For all three countries, the relationship between apolitical técnicos and the commitment of political elites is relevant. Even granting the narrowness of focus in this book, there is enlightenment on the mythology and reality of administrative reforms.
