Nevertheless, democracy puts heavy-demands of increased participation of the public in administrative process of government. Therefore, institutional participation is the modern notion of public participation in public administration.
However, due to the persistent conditions of scarcity in developing countries, their governments have to take initiative to attract, allure, plead and persuade the public for participation in public administration.
The governments of the developing countries have to give a helping hand to organise the unorganised and unrepresented. The modern notion of participation visualised sharing of responsibilities of public administration by big and small bodies in the process of policy formulation, planning, decision-making and actual implementation.
In this process, the participating non-governmental representative bodies have great responsibilities of carefully laying down norms and procedure of participation. Such participation necessarily has to be at all levels of administration.
To sum up, if public administration has to make itself public, it should concede as many wishes of the people as it could and should have an aptitude to hear and an eagerness to meet.
The guiding principle of the administration should be to accept a proposal unless it goes against some norms, rules, procedures and law. If by breaking a rule, norm and procedure the public gets a convenience at the cost of inconvenience to administrative personal, it may be allowed. But if it results in an inconvenience to another member of public it should not be allowed.
The new wave in the country has aroused very much of vigilance, consciousness and impatience on the part of the public in dealing with the administration.
Indian Public Administration cannot now be confined to cater mostly to the demands of privileged citizens it has rather to be oriented more towards the under privileged and the deprived sections of the society which constitute a great majority in our country today. The openness of administration depends upon the degree it allows for popular participation and the interests it generates in the mind of the ‘last man’.
Development does signify a relative change in time dimension either in organizational form or behavioural aspects. Does it amount to administrative development or development of the administrative or bureaucratic organization?
Is administrative development the same as bureaucratic or administrative reforms carried out from time to time? Does it signify change in volume of work, in number of persons employed, or increase in number of ministries or departments? Quantitative change in volume or load cannot be described as development of administration. Qualitative change could be the main area of development of administration apart from Qualitative change.
For purposes of this essay, development of administration would ipso-facto, imply administrative development or development of bureaucracy i.e., development in its organisation, process, functions and culture.
Reforms in the organization of public bureaucracy seriously and directly reflect the capacity and ability with which it can direct change in society. Indian bureaucracy was “molded” in a culture predetermined by the attitudes and notions of I.C.S. (a relatively small elite cadre, consisting of approximately 1157 officers in 1947), 52 per cent of whom were Bruisers constituting 0.7 per cent of the total number of British Indian Government employees.
This elite group while holding key posts determined to a considerable extent policy of administration and also dictated a “pattern” in bureaucratic behaviour.