¹ Davis, Kingsley, ”Population Policy: Will Current Programs Succeed?” Science, Vol. 158 (November 1967), 730–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Driver, Edwin, “Social Ideology, Social Organization, and Family Planning,” in Essays on Population Policy (Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath 1972), 101–25Google Scholar; Hauser, Phillip, “Population Policies Affecting Fertility: A Sociological Perspective on Family Planning Programs,” in International Union for the Scientific Study of Population, International Population Conference: Liège 1973, III (Liège, Belgium: IUSSP 1973), 303–18Google Scholar; Marshall, John, “Culture and Contraception: Response Determinants to a Family Planning Program in a North Indian Village,” unpub. Ph.D. diss. (University of Hawaii 1972)Google Scholar; Mandelbaum, David G., Human Fertility in India: Social Components and Policy Perspectives (Berkeley: University of California Press 1974)Google Scholar; Mencher, Joan, “Family Planning in Chingleput District, Madras, India,” in Polgar, Stephen, ed., Culture and Population: A Collection of Current Studies, Monograph 9 (Chapel Hill: Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina 1971), 151–59Google Scholar; Thomas Poffenberger and Shirley Poffenberger, “The Social Psychology of Fertility in a Village in India,” in Fawcett, James T., ed., Psychological Perspectives on Population (New York: Basic Books 1973), 135–61Google Scholar.

² Freedman, Ronald, “Family Planning Programs Today: Major Themes of the Geneva Conferences,” Studies in Family Planning, I (October 1965), 7Google Scholar.

³ Mathews, Training for Family Planning in India — Design for a Breakthrough: A Report to the Commissioner of Family Planning, New Delhi Ministry of Health and Family Planning; quoted in Banerji, D., Family Planning in India, A Critique and a Perspective (Bombay, India: People's Publishing House 1971), 34Google Scholar.

⁴ Berelson, Bernard, “The Present State of Family Planning Programs,” Studies in Family Planning, II (September 1970), 8Google Scholar.

⁵ See, for example, United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Report on the Family Planning Program in India, TAO/IND/48 (February 1966); Government of India, Estimates Committee, Thirteenth Report: Family Planning Programme, E.C. No. 706 (New Delhi: April 1972)Google Scholar; Planning Commission, Government of India, Evaluation of the Family Planning Programme (New Delhi: March 1965), 1–12, 94–107Google Scholar.

⁶ Myrdal, Gunnar, Asian Drama (New York: Twentieth Century Fund 1968), 1–47, 799–900Google Scholar.

⁷ Ibid., 961–1027, 1843–1940; Rothwell, Kenneth, Administrative Issues in Developing Economics (Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath 1972)Google Scholar; Simmons, George, The Indian Investment in Family Planning (New York: The Population Council 1971), 175–91Google Scholar.

⁸ Kaufman, Herbert, “The Administrative Function,” International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (New York: Macmillan and Free Press 1968), 66Google Scholar.

⁹ Austin, James E., “The Management Bottleneck in Family Planning Programs,” Studies in Family Planning, IV (December 1973), 343–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰ Blaise, Hans C., “Who is Responsible for Population Program Management?” in Readings on Family Planning and Population Program Management: Background Papers for a Ford Foundation Meeting on Population, Elsinore, Denmark, June 1972Google Scholar[hereafter referred to as Readings on Family Planning] (New York: Ford Foundation 1973), 97–111Google Scholar.

¹¹ Ford Foundation, India's Family Planning Program in the Seventies (New Delhi: Ford Foundation 1970), II-2-D-Pg. 1–7, H-2-C-Pg. 1–5.Google Scholar

¹² Helbig, “The Importance of the Soft Dimension in Training for Family Planning Programs Management,” in Readings on Family Planning (fn. 10), 42.

¹³ Cool, “Comments on the Application of Management Science to Family Planning Programs in Developing Countries,” in Readings on Family Planning (fn. 10), 37.

¹⁴ Helbig (fn. 12),41–45.

¹⁵ Etzioni, Amitai, “Two Approaches to Organizational Analysis: A Critique and a Suggestion,” Administrative Science Quarterly, v (September 1960), 257–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁶ LaPalombara, Joseph, Bureaucracy and Political Development (Princeton: Princeton University Press 1963), 3–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁷ One advantage of the open-systems model in policy research is that it reduces the temptation to resort to personal fault as an explanation for problems that are systemic in nature. See Caplan, Nathan and Nelson, Stephen O., “On Being Useful: The Nature and Consequences of Psychological Research on Social Problems,” American Psychologist, XXVIII (March 1973), 99–211Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Theodore Smith has made a somewhat comparable argument using the concept sui generis in his recent paper, “Management and Family Planning Programs: Indonesia, A Country Profile,” in Readings on Family Planning (in, 10), 25–33.

¹⁹ Linder, , “Fertility and Family Planning in Relation to Public Health,” Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, XLIX, Part 2 (October 1971), 200Google Scholar.

²⁰ Ibid.

²¹ Kaufman, , “The Direction of Organizational Evolution,” Public Administrative Review, XXXIII (July/August 1973), 307Google Scholar. Note that in our discussion we are assuming that it is the proponents of the managerial approach and not necessarily the administrators themselves who suffer from this malady.

²² Ibid.

²³ Lawrence, Paul and Lorsch, Jay, Developing Organizations: Diagnosis and Action (Menlo Park, California: Addison-Wesley 1969), 3Google Scholar.

²⁴ The term is chosen in preference to the more general term “organizational” because it puts emphasis on the process, and because the latter term would be equally applicable to the client-oriented activities undertaken by the organization. We will use the term “organizational” to refer to those general aspects of family planning programs that may include both organizing and client transactions. The term “management” is close in its meaning, but we have chosen to avoid it because of the relatively narrow range of meaning it has been given in the literature. The distinction between “organizing” and “client-oriented” is not used in the literature, but is consistent with Katz and Kahn's well-known taxonomy. See Katz, Daniel and Kahn, Robert L., The Social Psychology of Organizations (New York: Wiley and Sons 1966)Google Scholar.

²⁵ Lawrence and Lorsch (fn. 23), 16, point out that this is due to the fact that organizations can modify their own structure. As a result, specific elements, agencies, or units may be part of the organization at one time and outside of it at another.

²⁶ This is the district pattern for Uttar Pradesh. There is a good deal of statewide variation in the pattern.

²⁷ Thompson, J. D., Organizations in Action (New York: McGraw-Hill 1967), 51Google Scholar.

²⁸ Finkle, Jason L., “The Political Environment of Population Control in India and Pakistan,” in Clinton, Richard and others, Political Science in Population Studies (Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath 1972), 101–28Google Scholar.

²⁹ Thompson (fn. 27), 27, derives the term from Dill, W. R., “Environment as an Influence on Managerial Autonomy,” American Sociological Quarterly, XXIII (March 1958), 409–43Google Scholar. Our use of general environmental conditions as an independent factor departs somewhat from Thompson's and Dill's usage, but is in general consistent with the spirit of their definition.

³⁰ Elder, Robert E. Jr., Development Administration in a North Indian State: The Family Planning Program in Uttar Pradesh, Monograph 18 (Chapel Hill: Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina 1972)Google Scholar.

³¹ Bhatt, Anil, The Location of a Primary Health Centre in Kekawada: A Case Study (New Delhi: Indian Institute of Public Administration 1968)Google Scholar.

³² It should be indicated that there is a considerable amount of overlap between the categories of general environmental conditions and the task environment. The distinction holds, however, since general environmental conditions are conceptualized at a more general level of analysis. They include a broader perspective than the client sector (which only incorporates couples within the reproductive age group) and the environmental sector (which only refers to groups and agencies affecting the organization).

³³ Demerath, Nicholas J., “Can India Reduce Its Birth Rate? A Question of Modernization and Governmental Capacity,” Journal of Social Issues, XXIII, No. 4 (1967), 179–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar, presents a similar argument.

³³ Demerath, Nicholas J., “Can India Reduce Its Birth Rate? A Question of Modernization and Governmental Capacity,” Journal of Social Issues, XXIIII, No. 4 (1967), 179–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar, presents a similar argument.