The statement, "Comparative Public Administration started with no paradigm of its own and developed none," is a widely debated and largely accepted critique within the field of public administration. To understand this, it's essential to define what a 'paradigm' entails in a scientific or academic discipline.

What is a Paradigm?

According to Thomas Kuhn, a paradigm is a set of shared assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that define a scientific discipline at a given time. It provides a framework for understanding the world, guiding research, and interpreting findings. A mature discipline typically has a dominant paradigm or a set of competing paradigms.

CPA's Origins and Lack of a Distinct Paradigm:

Comparative Public Administration (CPA) emerged prominently in the 1950s and 1960s, largely driven by the need to understand administrative systems in newly independent developing countries (often termed 'development administration'). Its initial goals were ambitious: to develop universal theories of administration, identify best practices, and aid in nation-building.

However, CPA struggled from its inception to establish a unique theoretical framework:

1. Eclecticism and Borrowing: CPA was highly eclectic, borrowing heavily from other disciplines like political science, sociology, anthropology, and economics. It applied concepts such as structural-functionalism, systems theory, and the ecological approach (most notably Fred Riggs's 'Prismatic Society' model) to administrative studies. While these borrowings were valuable, they were not integrated into a coherent, distinct CPA paradigm.
2. Lack of a Dominant Theory: Unlike fields with a clear theoretical core (e.g., neoclassical economics), CPA never produced a single, universally accepted theory or model that could guide comparative research comprehensively. Different scholars used different conceptual lenses, leading to fragmentation rather than consolidation.
3. Methodological Challenges: The inherent complexity of comparing diverse administrative systems across different cultural, political, and socio-economic contexts posed significant methodological hurdles. Developing generalizable theories proved difficult when faced with such vast variations.
4. Descriptive vs. Prescriptive: Much of early CPA research tended to be descriptive, focusing on cataloging differences and similarities, rather than developing robust explanatory or predictive theories.

Failure to Develop a Paradigm and Subsequent Decline:

By the 1970s, CPA faced a significant decline, often attributed to its inability to fulfill its initial promise of theory building and its failure to develop a distinct paradigm:

1. Over-Generalization and Lack of Empirical Rigor: Some theories were criticized for being too abstract or for making generalizations that did not hold up to empirical scrutiny across diverse contexts.
2. Ethnocentric Bias: Despite efforts to be culturally sensitive, some critiques argued that CPA still carried an implicit Western bias, attempting to apply Western administrative models to non-Western contexts.
3. Focus Shift: The intellectual energy shifted towards other areas like New Public Management (NPM), public policy analysis, and governance studies, which offered more immediate practical relevance or clearer theoretical frameworks.

Nuance and Legacy:

While CPA may not have developed a distinct paradigm, it would be inaccurate to say it had no impact. Its contributions include:

• Contextual Awareness: It highlighted the crucial importance of socio-cultural and political context in shaping administrative systems, moving beyond universalistic assumptions.
• Challenging Ethnocentrism: It forced scholars to question the applicability of Western administrative theories to developing countries.
• Foundation for Future Research: It laid the groundwork for subsequent comparative studies in public administration, international public administration, and global governance, even if these fields operate under different theoretical banners.

Conclusion:

In essence, the statement holds true. CPA, despite its noble aspirations and initial intellectual ferment, never coalesced around a unique, dominant theoretical paradigm. Its inherent eclecticism, methodological difficulties, and the sheer diversity of its subject matter prevented it from establishing a distinct identity in the way other academic disciplines have. This lack of a unifying framework ultimately contributed to its fragmentation and decline as a separate sub-discipline, though the comparative spirit continues to inform broader public administration research.