Rawat did actually talk (circa 1971 ?) about how the western ashrams were supposed to be although he rewrote the rule book later on for the super devotional period. The inititial conception was that the western ashrams were to combine the 'retreat' aspect of the Indian ashrams with a 'dynamic' propogation role. So from early on the western ashrams were 'official'.
However, everything about DLM was chaotic - and frankly just plain crap. There was also huge variations between the national set ups and even within countries/regions. In the UK certainly all the legal stuff regarding rents/service charges etc were the responsibility of the residents - the organisation had no involvement, neither was there any legal contract between ashram residents and DLM. There were also 'non' official ashrams where premies set themselves up to live like ashram residents without being sanctioned by the organisation. It is therefore understandable why Pilarzyk wrote what he did - though I think in many respects he overstates the 'transition' to legal rational structures.
While the later ashram structure was based much more on an iron rule for individuals there is little sign that the organisation became any more 'rational' - if anything it became more chaotic. IMO it was this 'chaos' that actually lay at the basis of Rawat's control, premies never knew where they stood so they were always having to 'reference' themselves on Rawat.
Pilarzyk's analysis also gives no role to the non organisational elite who made up the 'court' of King Prem. While some of PAMs - People Around Maharaji - were organisational operatives there were others, particularly individuals who had private wealth who played no part in the day to day running of DLM and certainly were never part of the ashram system.
The fact that Rawat could happily dissolve the ashrams almost overnight also undermines Pilarzyk's position - which if pursued logically would conclude that closing the ashrams would have entailed Rawat giving up his centre of power.
Rawat's exercise of power has always depended upon the guru/devotee - master/pupil relationship being maintained on a (believed by the premies to be ) personal level.
Legal/rational structures have only played a role in delivering the lifestyle/material wants/pet projects that Rawat has demanded over the last 30 years, and Legal/rational structures have IMO played only an incidental role in Rawat's exercise of power and control.
Nik
