Politics-administration Dichotomy Research Articles

A Historical Analysis of the Administrative Origins of NASA

This paper analyzes the public administration origins of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The analysis begins with an overview of the historical events that led to the establishment of NASA and its administrative foundation. We then consider how interest group balancing and the political-administrative dichotomy affected the process that created a national space program. We conclude by commenting on what the public administration origins of NASA may tell us about both the future of the agency and the administration of space science and technology policy.

Woodrow Wilson’s Administrative Thought and German Political Theory

To what extent were Woodrow Wilson’s ideas about public administration informed by German organic political theory? Drawing on the writings of Wilson, Lorenz von Stein, and Johann K. Bluntschli on public administration, and comparing American and German primary sources, the author offers insights into Wilson’s general concept of public administration, as well as his understanding of the politics–administration dichotomy. With regard to current administrative research, this study underscores how the transfer of ideas profoundly contributes to advancing comparative public administration and helps clarify terminological difficulties and conflicting perspectives among diverse administrative science traditions.

DOES POLITICAL CHANGE AFFECT SENIOR MANAGEMENT TURNOVER? AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF TOP-TIER LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN ENGLAND

In many political systems the political neutrality of senior managers’ tenure is often cherished as a key part of the politics-administration dichotomy and is subject to formal safeguards. We test hypotheses about the impact of political change on senior management turnover drawn from political science, public administration and private sector management theory. Using panel data to control for unobserved heterogeneity between authorities, we find that changes in political party control and low organizational performance have both separate and joint positive effects on the turnover rate of senior managers. By contrast, the most senior manager, the chief executive, is more sheltered: the likelihood of a chief executive succession is higher only when party change and low performance occur together. Thus the arrival of a new ruling party reduces the tenure of senior managers, but chief executives are vulnerable to political change only when performance is perceived as weak.

Weber, Wilson, and Hegel: Theories of Modern Bureaucracy

Convergence between Woodrow Wilson's and Max Weber's thought, as well as their differences with regard to the politics–administration dichotomy, can be ascribed to the Hegelian tradition of public administrative theory. On the one hand, Wilson was strongly influenced by Georg W. F. Hegel. On the other hand, there is an empirical connection between Hegel and Weber. Both shared a consciousness of the German bureaucratic tradition based on Hegel's Philosophy of Right. These insights have important methodological and theoretical implications for the contemporary comparative study of public administration.

The Complementarity View: Exploring a Continuum in Political—Administrative Relations

The politics–administration dichotomy has drawn criticism from contemporary public administration scholars largely because of its lack of descriptive accuracy and particular normative inclinations. In their search for an alternative model to the dichotomy, some scholars developed what is widely known today as complementarity. Although this emerging view received an enthusiastic welcome from many scholars and practitioners, more research has yet to be done to address its conceptual and empirical shortcomings. Using survey data collected from a nationwide sample of city managers, this study explores empirical foundations of the complementarity view of the politics–administration relationship. Specifically, the author first identifies a politics–management continuum based on a review of public administration literature on the complementarity view and then analyzes survey data to see whether the relationship between elected officials and public administrators is characterized by complementarity. The results of the analysis generally support the complementarity view, in that the responses of city managers mostly parallel the idea of a continuum in elected official–public administrator relationships, a continuum that moves from politics on one end to management on the other end, with various policy and administration activities in the middle. This paper aims to make a conceptual and empirical contribution to an important question in public administration.

Public Libraries and the GATS

Politically neutral bureaucrats posed no threat to the constitution as long as they were only executing poli cies chosen by elected officials. Although they note that the distinction has blurred over time, Denhardt and Denhardt (2007) find the politics-administration dichotomy an important element of the field and its importance is still evident in current government institutions such as the council-manager form of local government. Huber's book on bureaucratic neutrality rejects the politics?administration dichotomy as im practical and instead argues that strategic neutrality allows for bureaucratic power and policy making.

The Craft of Bureaucratic Neutrality‐Is the Politics‐Administration Dichotomy Dead?

The Craft of Bureaucratic Neutrality‐Is the Politics‐Administration Dichotomy Dead?

The Politics–Administration Dichotomy: An Empirical Search for Correspondence between Theory and Practice

The politics–administration dichotomy has been one of the most disputed theories of public administration. Despite serious critiques, neither the theoretical utility nor the normative power of the dichotomy has totally disappeared over the past decades. The dichotomy has been advocated on the grounds that the dichotomous division of labor and authority between elected and administrative officials increases the democratic accountability and planning ability of public administrators. This article first builds a theoretical model of the politics–administration dichotomy and then evaluates the model using empirical data collected from a nationwide sample of city managers serving in council‐manager local governments. Results of structural equation modeling illustrate that the politics–administration dichotomy fails to obtain its predicted tendencies in actuality. The authors interpret the findings in light of the contemporary public administration literature. The article aims to make a theoretical‐empirical contribution to one of the most challenging questions in public administration.

The Politics–Administration Dichotomy in U.S. Historical Context

This article distinguishes the competing interpretations of the politics–administration dichotomy, noting that as, originally framed, it was intended to detach partisan politics and patronage from sound public management. Waldo, the author suggests, concerned himself with the later, more expansive conception of the dichotomy, which included the process of policy making.

Beyond Heterodoxy: Dwight Waldo and the Politics–Administration Dichotomy

Dwight Waldo (1913–2000) is commonly known as a “heterodox” critic of the dichotomy between politics and administration. But is this reputation supported by his writings? It seems to be primarily based on The Administrative State (1948) and other early publications, in which he conceptualized politics/administration narrowly as deciding/executing and, indeed, sharply criticized it. Waldo’s later publications, by contrast, offer much broader conceptualizations and a more ambivalent, even positive appraisal of the dichotomy. Such conceptualizations are also found in an important unpublished book Waldo worked on during several phases of his career. On the basis of these published and unpublished writings, we should reconsider Waldo’s reputation and, pursuing his line of reasoning, reconceptualize the politics–administration dichotomy as a layered construct and reappreciate it as a constitutional doctrine.

Ministerial System in Hong Kong: A Strengthening of the Executive Leadership

The Chief executive of Hong Kong, Tung Chee-hwa, launched a new ministerial system in Hong Kong in July 2002. The new ministerial system in general, and the composition of the Executive Council in particular, transformed the decision-making processes in the government. On the one hand, the politically appointed ministers (secretaries with portfolios) are given new roles and powers in the governance process. On the other hand, the senior civil servants, once the main decision-makers in the government, are put into a more neutral position mainly responsible for routine administration. A politics-administration dichotomy seems to be established. The aim of the article is to analyze the implications of the new ministerial system for politics in Hong Kong. It is argued that the ministerial system only strengthens the power of the chief executive rather than increases the degree of political accountability, or democracy, in Hong Kong.

Politics and Administration in U.S. Local Governments

Public administration scholars often have focused on the relationship between elected and appointed officials. This study assesses the extent to which public administrators‘ relationships with elected officials conform to the three models that scholars have used to characterize that relationship: the orthodox politics-administration dichotomy, the modified dichotomy, and a partnership model. In addition, the study seeks to determine whether demographic, structural, and experiential variables relate to respondents’ preference for each of the three models. The data come from a mail survey of a random sample of U.S. local government managers. Using factor analysis, the study finds that managers identify with all three models, with the modified dichotomy model explaining the most variance among the managers and the orthodox dichotomy model the least. Salary, governing board size, private-sector experience, and gender relate positively and at significant levels to identification with the orthodox dichotomy model; public administration education and population relate negatively to this model. Several experiential variables relate positively to the partnership model. Public administration education relates negatively to identification with the partnership model. The identification of local government managers with both the orthodox and the modified dichotomy models indicates a continuing emphasis on insulating administration from politics. That most managers posit a strong role for themselves in policy making by identifying with either the modified dichotomy or the partnership model indicates that these public administrators see themselves very differently from the image of the passive handwringer sometimes depicted by those who criticize or caricature bureaucracy. The dominant model espoused by contemporary public administration scholars, that of the partnership model, does have a strong empirical referent among practicing public administrators, indicating support for the potential strengths of blending politics and administration in policy development and administration.

LOOKING AT THE POLITICS–ADMINISTRATION DICHOTOMY FROM THE OTHER DIRECTION: PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION BY A STATE SENATOR

The politics–administration dichotomy has been a durable concept in political science and public administration. Many effective critiques of the doctrine, first suggested by Woodrow Wilson in 1887, have not diminished the longevity of the approach it suggests for policy making in government. Yet, most of the literature has been written from the point of view of either academics or public administration practitioners. Little has been presented from the point of the view of the other participants in the dichotomy, the elected officials. Based on participant observation in the Wisconsin Legislature from 1977 to 1989, the author reviews how the politicians with whom he served behaved regarding their relations with administrators. He suggests that elected officials make decisions based on political rationality rather than a comprehensive norm defining their relationship with administrators. The political decision making he observed implicitly viewed administrators as subordinate to politicians rather than equal partners, roughly comparable to the discredited original meaning of the politics–administration dichotomy.

The Myth of the Dichotomy: Complementarity of Politics and Administration in the Past and Future of Public Administration

At the heart of the practice of public administration is the relationship between administrators, on one hand, and political leaders and the public on the other hand. The nature of that relationship and the proper role of administrators in the political process have been the subject of considerable debate. Anxiety about administrative legitimacy has been particularly intense in the United States, where the rise of the administrative state was out of synch with a democratic society (Stillman 1997), but similar issues have arisen in other countries as well (Rutgers 1997). As the field emerged, was important to differentiate a practice based on professional knowledge and values from political particularism, but the extent and scope of the differentiation were unclear. It was also necessary to reconcile the tensions among complying with the directions of elected officials, maintaining professional integrity, and serving the public. Observers differ as to whether American thinking about the relationship of public administration to society has experienced major shifts over time or has gradually evolved. Along the lines developed by Lynn, the case can be made that there has generally been continuity in the development of public administration in the United States rather than an abandonment of the traditions of the field. Whereas Lynn organizes his reexamination around the bureaucratic paradigm, my emphasis is the core relationship between politicians and administrators.(1) Not only did traditional thought, as Lynn observes, seek to maintain balance between administrative capacity and popular control on behalf of public purposes defined by electoral and judicial institutions, also sought to justify the contributions of public administrators to shaping the definition of public purposes. Put simply, early contributors to the development of public administration acknowledged a role for administrators that has often been ignored. Even the politics-administration dichotomy that is a part of the traditional paradigm usually incorporates the ideas of accountability and responsibility--although the paradigm can be expressed in ways that seem to preclude these qualities by portraying administration as mechanically instrumental--but the emphasis on a strict dichotomy of politics and administration will not accommodate the role of administrators that has come to be widely recognized. In the past--and, I would argue, in the present as well--there was simultaneous emphasis on separation and insulation of administrators from political interference, on one hand, and interaction and incorporation of administrative contributions in the design and the implementation of public policy, on the other hand. Wilson and Goodnow favored such contributions, as did Leonard White, who acknowledged but dismissed concerns about the growth of administration controlling in the first instance the application of law to the individual case, cooperating also in the formulation of policy (1926, 33). Although legislative control of administration is critical, he argued, it is nevertheless important to remember that the administration cooperates indispensably with the legislature, and that without its assistance, the task of legislation would become much less informed and much less effective. These founding fathers of the field never advocated the dichotomy attributed to them--a conclusion demonstrated repeatedly (Golembiewski 1977; Rabin and Bowman 1984, 4; Rohr 1986, 31; Van Riper 1984, 209-10).(2) Still, the myth that public administration began as a narrow, confined, and insulated activity is regularly repeated partly because, as Lynn implies, is self-satisfying to view ourselves as enlightened and to view earlier, particularly prewar scholars and practitioners, as benighted. There are a number of reasons why the dichotomy idea has persisted. It is convenient to explain the division of roles in terms of total separation because is easier to explain than a model based on sharing roles, particularly since the separation model does not limit the actual contributions of administrators in practice. …

History Lessons for Reinventors

Toward end of Waldo Symposium at Syracuse University in 1996, Paul P. Van Riper averred that, as field, public administration was neglecting its history and allowing others, lacking deep knowledge of its literature and institutional development, to define its past for many faculty, students, politicians, pundits, and journalists. price could be high if replaced historical understanding and field was misconstrued in self-serving ways by those seeking to reinvent or otherwise change it. Laurence E. Lynn Jr.'s The Myth of Bureaucratic Paradigm: What Traditional Public Administration Really Stood hammers Van Riper's point home. He brings great intellectual energy to showing why we must reclaim and re-examine American public administrative history. One does not have to agree with every aspect of Lynn's historical analysis to embrace his larger argument. Historical knowledge is prerequisite for grappling productively with larger purposes of public administration in U.S. constitutional system. Lynn's example of myth of bureaucratic paradigm is well chosen because it clearly highlights weaknesses of reinvention literature and weaknesses of an academic discipline and profession that quickly gave it wide currency. An Orthodoxy? metaphor of a bundle of sticks is sometimes used to characterize property rights in American law. For instance, right to exclude others from one's property is such stick. It is useful way of thinking about public administration's putative as well.(1) is an intellectual construct used to denote number of interconnected ideas that were advanced primarily from 1870s through 1930s. It had some institutional, organizational, and social manifestations, but one could espouse orthodox ideas without being self-conscious member of any movement or group.(2) On these terms, it is inherently contestable whether the orthodoxy is useful construct for understanding part of field's past. Lynn thinks it does too much damage to public administration's historical heterodoxy. Along with others, I have found it useful label for following group of ideas: 1. There should be separation between partisan politics on one hand, and organization and staffing of civil service, on other. civil service reformers of 1870s-1890s were primary source of this idea (Rosenbloom 1971, ch. 3). They promoted it both before and after Woodrow Wilson wrote what some consider field's foundational essay in 1887. elimination of partisanship from civil service was later conflated with broader politics-administration dichotomy in which policy making as well as partisanship was considered distinct from administration. broader dichotomy is often attributed to Frank Goodnow (1900), who provided bridge between reformers and Progressives by showing how political reforms for improving expression of people's will were connected to administrative reforms for executing it. Eventually, politics and administration were treated conceptually as largely separate endeavors with fundamentally different value scales (Gulick and Urwick 1937, 10, 192). 2. Much of what government does is business and should be insulated from control by elected officials. reformers made this claim with respect to civil service. Later, Progressives used it to promote city management and establishment of authorities for infrastructure (which, like patronage-based public employment, was major source of corruption and power for political machines). 3. Public administration could be design science. Wilson (1887) raised this idea in his essay, but it gained prominence with publication of Frederick Taylor's Principles of Scientific Management (1911). By 1923, if not before, science was claimed as basis for fundamental administrative technology--that of position classification. …

Dwight Waldo 1913–2000

The Early Years Dwight Waldo was born in 1913 in DeWitt, Nebraska, into a farming family of five brothers and sisters. He claimed his two most important boyhood achievements were winning second place in a baby contest and winning a hog-calling competition. After high school, Waldo went to Nebraska Wesleyan College later transferring to Nebraska State Teachers College in Peru because it was less expensive. He intended to become a high school teacher but when he graduated no teaching jobs were available. Waldo often described his career as a series of opportunities in which he his way upward in life. For example, he would say that he accepted a graduate assistantship at University of Nebraska-Lincoln because he to find a high school teaching position. When he finished his master's degree, job market was still unpromising so he failed upward again by accepting a scholarship to attend Yale University. Why Yale? According to Waldo, it was because he had received a scholarship and had never been to East, which seemed exciting, given that he had few options. At Yale, Professor Francis Coker suggested that he look into literature of public administration from angle of American political theory. Waldo admitted that he first viewed materials with distaste, even as nonsense, hardly equal to Plato, Aristotle, and Hobbes. But more he studied, more he found political theory of seminal significance to public administration. This association formed basis for his doctoral dissertation, which was later published as The Administrative State (1948, 1984). With publication of The Administrative State, pre-war POSDCORB world of public administration would never be quite same. The Administrative State endures as one of most important works in intellectual development of public administration. Like many major intellectual accomplishments, The Administrative State functions at several levels. It is a demarcation point in transition in United States from orthodoxy of era of scientific-administrative management of 1920s and 1930s to heterodoxy of 1940s and thereafter. It is also a link between what The Administrative State calls the public administration encompassing both thought and action in first half of twentieth century, and broader realms of political theory and history of ideas. Perhaps most significantly, it is an introduction to a distinctive form of inquiry and logic, Waldonian approach to public action. The Waldonian approach is a form of analytic pluralism that involves a continuous process of examining antinomies or contrasting propositions to discover what remains of a proposition after it is tested against an opposing one. In Waldonian approach, administrative thinking is as much an iterative process as a search for settled principles or findings. The Administrative State reviews background of development of federal government as an active agent in shaping American economy and society in first half of twentieth century. It examines ideological framework of American public action: belief in democracy and democratic ideals; fundamental law; a doctrine of progress; gospel of efficiency; and faith in science. This foundation, coupled with reorganization and redirection of government in early twentieth century, based on progressive movement, formed American public administration as a distinctive form of political theory and of politics. In research for The Administrative State, Waldo found that an orthodox public administration ideology had developed between early 1900s and late 1930s. At heart of this ideology, were: 1) democracy and efficiency (or bureaucracy) were thought to be synonymous or at least reconcilable; 2) work of government was thought to be divisible into two parts, decision and execution, or politics-administration dichotomy; 3) execution or administration is, or can be made, a science based on firm scientific principles for administration which can be discovered and applied; 4) values and practices of business management can be generally applied successfully to governmental administration. …

Retrofitting the Administrative State to the Constitution: Congress and the Judiciary's Twentieth‐Century Progress

One of the twentieth century's “big questions” for United States government has been how best to retrofit, or integrate, the full‐fledged federal administrative state into the constitutional scheme. The public administration orthodoxy initially advocated placing the executive branch almost entirely under presidential control; Congress and the federal judiciary responded otherwise. Congress decided to treat the agencies as its extensions for legislative functions and to supervise them more closely. The courts developed an elaborate framework for imposing constitutional rights, values, and reasoning on public administration practice. As the challenge of retrofitting continues into the twenty‐first century, public administrators might profitably play a larger role in the constitutional discourse regarding the administrative state's place in constitutional government.

Running Government Like a Business

The public sector faces increasing demands to run government like a business, importing privatesector concepts such as entrepreneurism, privatization, treating the citizen like a “customer,” and management techniques derived from the production process. The idea that government should mimic the market is not new in American public administration, but the current situation is particularly intense. The new public management seeks to emphasize efficient, instrumental implementation of policies, removing substantive policy questions from the administrative realm. This revival of the politics-administration dichotomy threatens core public-sector values of citizen selfgovernance and the administrator as servant of the public interest. The article examines the political culture that encourages expansion of market-like practices in the American public sector, explores the issues of the purpose and scope of government and the role of the public-service practitioner, and offers a framework for the study and practice of public administration based on citizenship and public service.

Complementarity of Politics and Administration as a Legitimate Alternative to the Dichotomy Model

Although the politics-administration dichotomy model has frequently been presented as historically important but conceptually and empirically faulty, the criticisms have missed two fundamental points. First, it is not—as commonly presumed—the founding theory of public administration in the United States but rather a poorly grounded characterization of the early literature that took hold in the late 1950s. The term dichotomy was rarely used before that time and never used by the “founders” of the field who were supposed to have invented the model. Second, there is an alternative model of complementarity that has been present in the literature from Wilson onward. It stresses interdependency, reciprocal influence, and extensive interaction between elected officials and administrators along with recognition of the need for distinct roles and political supremacy. The politics-administration complementarity model—elaborated here with references to the “old” public administration literature prior to 1960—offers a strong foundation on which we can build.

Exorcising the ghost of the politics-administration dichotomy: an institutional theory of administration policy making

This article takes implementation theory one critical step further. It argues that administrative policy making is a separate, distinguishable process, not a stage in or component of the legislative policy-making process. In addition, it argues that the institutional setting for policy making has a major influence on policy ideas, choices, and actions. Administrative agencies form a distinct institutional setting for policy politics, and setting influences policy outcomes. The implications of the institutional perspective for understanding policy making, policy analysis, and the legitimacy of public organizations are examined. The ghost of the politics-administration dichotomy haunts implementation theory. Although numerous scholars have declared the dichotomy dead,(1) administrative policy making is still seen as a component or step in the policy process that is dominated by elected officials. For example, Kelman recently examined the different institutional settings of policy making.(2) Elected officials, in his view, are and should remain the primary source of policy ideas and choices while administrators remain responsible for translating these ideas and choices into practice. Other scholars underscore the lack of effective control by legislators and elected executives. But even those who acknowledge administrative initiative and autonomy see administrators as servants, however weak their masters. This article takes implementation theory one critical step farther. It argues that administrative policy making is a separate, distinguishable process—not merely a stage in or component of legislative policy making. Policies can and do originate in administrative agencies. These innovations gather supporters and critics, are tested and refined, and can become part of the routine with little, if any, involvement by elected officials or political appointees. Legislation and executive orders commonly ratify existing administrative policies rather than initiate administrative involvement. In addition, the institutional setting for policy making has a major influence on policy ideas, choices, and actions. Administrative agencies form a distinct institutional setting for policy politics. The institutional setting, it is argued, influences policy outcomes. Administrative policy making is not, however, an entirely discrete process. It intersects with legislative policy making at important and predictable points. The two policy processes, legislative and administrative, are loosely and variably coupled.(3) The central distinction is that administrative policy making is dominated by the ideas, norms, routines, and choices of nonelected public employees, whereas legislative policy making is dominated by the perspectives of elected officials. Administrative policy making can occur in the bureaucracies of the President or of Congress. The argument that these two processes—legislative and administrative—are distinct does not, however, deny their essential overlap. The overlap between these two fundamentally different policy settings has fostered the delusion that there is only one policy setting with legislative and administrative components. Clearly elected officials influence administrative policy making, and, just as clearly, administrators influence legislative policy making.(4) Nevertheless, their interaction remains obscure without a clearer perception of the profound differences between the two settings. As stated, the importance of administrative policy making seems obvious and uncontroversial, but its implications are strongly resisted.(5) Public administration and implementation theories have not adequately recognized the importance of administrative policy making in modem welfare states.(6) Before more fully developing these ideas, four examples of administrative policy making are briefly reviewed.