In attempting to cope with the challenges of modernization, government officials are urged by specialists in development and comparative administration to manipulate the organization of public activity. Prescriptions for altering the public sector usually advocate one of two simple but contradictory options: centralization or decentralization. Adopting one or the other of these administrative arrangements reputedly yields important benefits which have system-wide impact on the course of development.1 Unfortunately, no a priori principle exists to guide the choice between these sharply divergent alternatives. The present study was designed to compare the consequences of these organizational strategies in order to evaluate their utility as developmental courses of public action.