Administration Politics Dichotomy

Administration-Politics Dichotomy
March 9, 2012
MPA5001: Foundations of Public Administration
Professor Lewis

Administration-Politics Dichotomy represents the existence of a contradictory and exclusive relationship between that of political policies and administrative processes. Our 28th President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson saw the country through World War 1 and was unable to convince the US that the League of Nations was a viable effort.
The models of Administration-Politics Dichotomy vary; the orthodox model emphasized strict separation of politics and administration, with each having its own distinct functions. As politics determines the goals and the policies of government, and administration implements those goals and policies, and added to this the administrator should be neutral politically. Whether defining partisan politics or formulating policy, neutrality applies to politics, in its minimal form, it applies to that of partisan neutrality. This version of the dichotomy then puts stress on the fact that there is to be insulation from politics, posting that elected officials are not allowed to interfere with the administration or any implementation of policies, therefore, administrators must rely on their technical effectiveness in order to develop the best ways to administer policy and goals that are set out by the elected officials, and they must remain insulated from all political pressures in exercising their discretion based on their professional competence in order to carry out those policies set by the legislature.
In evidentiary fact based on the articles read, the administration-politics dichotomy is normally attributed to that of two public administration scholars from long past, that of Woodrow Wilson and Frank Goodnow, who were often very misrepresented, especially Goodnow. Their works give us some lay ground for suggesting that they advocated strict interpretation of the dichotomy, by example, Wilson wrote “The field of administration is a field of business. It is removed from the hurry and strife of politics; …” (1887, 209). Wilson further argued that the “administration lies outside the proper sphere of politics. Administrative questions are not political questions. Although politics set the tasks for administration it should not be suffered to manipulate its offices” (p.210, emphasis in the original). The latter part of the statement illustrates the insulation from politics along with the separation of the two functions of government. Later, Woodrow Wilson stated that “the broad plans of governmental action are not administrative” (p. 212). Woodrow Wilson also exposed an empowered administrator, on that possessed considerable flexibility in executing governmental action. He also went on to write that “large powers and unhampered discretion see to me the indispensable conditions of responsibility” (p. 213).

Wilson also desired to separate politics and administration, and it probably came from his need to persuade others to accept reforms of administrative practices that were drawn from European nations, who at that time were not rich with the legacy of democratic practices, he wanted to import those administrative practices and leave behind the non-democratic politics.
Frank Goodnow was the second most intellectual ancestor of the dichotomy and he wrote the first length of book about public administration in 1900. Goodnow notes that “politics has to do with policies or expressions of the state will, and administration has to do with the execution of these policies” (1900, 18). However, Goodnow 's view is considerably more nuanced according to Lynn (2001) and Svara (1998, 53). Svara, a student of local government management argued that the council manager reform movement, at least at times throughout its history, “was clearly unambiguously embracing the administration-politics dichotomy” (Svara, 1998).
The articles combined efforts demonstrate many dimensional views of both public and private dichotomy 's, offering varied degrees of why organizations are affected by political authority and may be dependent on public resources, also in referencing an understanding of the transfer of management technologies and in understanding employee motivations. (Bozeman & Bretschneider, 1994)
There are also comparisons made by two of the authors, Barry Bozeman and David Coursey, analyzing the decision making processes across a dimensional distribution of public and private organizations. Done in part by survey of some of the courntries top executives, and relating the differences that they have found in strategic decision making and the kinds of problems addressed by these public and private organizations. (Bozeman & Coursey, 1990)
There is also references made throughout my research and the articles that I have read which concern taking on top executives or government officials as they discuss the experiences that they have had in and with government, showing a relation of public and private sector management and the issues that they face in light of incentives and performance measures, equity, and in confliction of the loyalties of these government executives. (Dunlop, Chandler, Schultz & Shapiro, 1979)

Defined research also relates what happens to the poor in our country in these public administrations, whereas, they face inadequate recruitment, enforced diversity, and a lot of bureaucratic bashing whereby discouraging qualified entrants from seeking out those positions in the public sector. Further research shows that the federal government has not suffered in the recruitment or the retention of quality employees. Based also on evidence, are that public employees are motivated by benefits, security, and the importance of their work efforts. (Crewson, 1995)

Articles in my research by Thomas Hennessey Jr. (1998), show that reinvention and performance along with consideration of organizational cultures has had a vast affect on leadership in both sectors. Relating that leadership is the key to improved performances and in amenable cultures, and is also to be considered in reforms that would seek out better performance, which takes us way beyond that of structural or process question and the introduction of rewards or incentives. (Hennessey, 1998)

My research has also added enlightenment to international views of government reform movements, putting particular focus on the United Kingdom and New Zealand. Defining that there are common elements of reform, that of concentration on "managerialism", concepts of "letting the managers manage" and "making the managers manage", along with dominant reform theories and policies. Research also shows that with new administrative capacity, along comes varied workers with obviously different skill sets, for instance, that of outsourcing requires new abilities for governments to be smart buyers, but also having the capacity to manage inherently all governmental functions. (Kettle, 1997)

It was also found in reading, that public administration is also threatened by the loss of its theoretical distinctiveness in the face off with the current emphasis based on generic management principles and business school approaches. Noting that public sector is distinguished by its basis in public law, and the application of private sector management practices compared to that of government have had many harmful effects. Principles in order to affirm the distinctiveness of the public sector are thus proposed. (Moe & Gilmore, 1995)
Well documented are the questions of distinctions made between public and private organizations, exploring the definitions of both public and private sector and using them to make distinctions on organizational research, in addition showing the typology of organizations being as more complex than most common dichotomous approaches, whereby suggesting cross-classifying organizations which are based on ownership, funding and modes of social control. (Perry & Rainey, 1988)

The articles also place a focus on business leaders and their experiences when they take on those senior positions in the federal government, concluding that sectors are indeed different, and not merely in matters of efficiency and rationality, complex hierarchies, and external interference that drive and dictate to them that the rules are different, and that the requirements for managerial success are very different between that of the public and private sectors. (Ross, 1988)

According to Svara (1998), the politics administration dichotomy model is an important construct in all facets of public administration and as well very useful in the marking of boundaries of public administration, as well as great in the ascertaining of known relationship of the norms between elected officials and administrators in our democratic society. He also states that "It is important as a normative standard in the profession of local government management" (Svara, 1998).

Svara rationalized the why we insulate the practice of public administration from that of political interference, further stating that "It is not possible to have a one way dichotomy that will keep elected officials out of administration but that would allow administrators to be active in policy making" (Svara, 1998).

Svara goes on to attribute that standing alone, the dichotomy model is an aberration well associated with concepts of orthodox public administration that existed during the 20sw and 30s, and is very much different when based in the concepts of democracy and administration that both proceed and follow it (Svara, 1998).

Longitudinal data is also used to show that local decisions to provide public services is complex and dynamic to say the least. therefore local governments often use a range of service restructuring alternatives that include privatization, mixed public/private provisions and cooperation 's between governments. This data as well shows that there is a significant instability in contracts, that include contracting in and the reverting back to public provisions of previously privatized services and that "reverse privatization" may very well reflect many problems that exist with the contracting process itself, with limited erosion in service quality or concerns with the loss of broader community values that are associated with public service delivery. The government manages markets structuring in order to ensure efficiency and broader public benefits of service delivery are achieved. (Warner & Hefetz, 2001)

Responses on some of the surveys taken regarding differences between that of public and private organizations, showed that public managers indicated higher degrees of rules, procedures, and constraints in public organizations, as well they also had a greater clarity of the goals and greater effectiveness in achieving those goals. (Lan & Rainey, 1992)

It is therefore found that public management is in itself rapidly growing and international in scope and multifarious in content. Leaving that “the common sense of public management is somewhat straightforward in nature, and good public managers, irrelevant of their positions ore responsibilities, are seen to be men and women with the temperament and skills to organize, motivate, and direct the actions of others in and out of government toward the creation of achievement of goals that warrant the use of public authority. Whereby few public laws and policies are self-executing, and, philosophy or regime, then, the achievement of good government requires the responsible and competent use of public authority by a government’s managers” (Lynn, 2001).

Common sense takes precedence on issues that are at the heart of public management officials, beginning from its inception as a field of study and practice. Public management has a basic objective, and that is to provide theoretical and empirical foundations that will address questions and also questions that come up when one is organizing and carrying out their distinctive managerial responsibilities in government departments, bureaus, and offices: “means end rationality; the role of political-legal constraints; appropriate levels of discretion and resources; ex ante versus ex post controls over administration; accountability to the public: criteria for evaluating administration; and administrative reform” (Lynn, 2001)

There are many public administration scholars that feel, of the two concepts, administration is original and primary, public management is novel and subordinate or specialized.” (Lynn, 2001). Public Management as a special focus of modern public administration is fairly new, according to Perry and Kraemer (1983), similarly a view that Is relatively shared by Rainey, (1990, p. 157). In 1984, Moore summarized the emerging state of the public management art:

“Our conception of ‘public management’ adds responsibility for goal setting and political management to the traditional responsibilities of public administration…Our conception of public management adds some quintessential executive functions such as setting purpose, maintaining credibility with overseers, marshaling authority and resources, and positioning one’s organization in a given political environment as central component of a public manager’s job (Moore, 1984, p.2,3).

This issue was addressed with authority at the dawn of public administration as a profession. Argued Frank J. Goodnow in 1893, ‘in transacting its business [the government’s] object is not usually the acquisition of gain but the furtherance of the welfare of the community. This is the great distinction between public and private business’ (1893, 1902, p. 10). At a more subtle level, Goodnow argued that ‘the grant to the administration of . . . enormous 4 discretionary powers’ means that ‘there has . . . been a continuous attempt on the part of the people to control the discretion of the administration in the exercise of the sovereign powers of the state’ (1893, 1902, p. 10, 11).

With the basic elements of these arguments, are that public and private management are basically unalike in all of the important areas; which are that public interest is different from private interests; and public officials, because they have the power to exercise sovereign power by the state, are necessarily accountable for democratic values rather than to a specific group or material interest; and that in our constitution there are requirements of equal treatment of persons and it rules out the kind selectivity that can be essential in sustaining profitability. Of more concern, are the extents to which the differences between the two sectors have been well documented empirically (Rainey, 1997)

In conclusion, it is therefore said that without the vagaries of politics, public management as an institution and public managers as individuals must take on do the best that they can in difficult, and if not Impossible circumstances, even in light of doing very little more than what is seen as mere “muddling through” or simply “coping” (Lindblom 1959; Wilson 1989). Being the best that they can be is considered a matter of craft, which when committed to the benefit of training and practice, which is based on case studies. Public managers have the opportunity to be forthcoming both with their institutionalized and internalized values, and of being self consciously guided by the precept of managerial responsibility. However, the individual characters of structure, craft, and institution will vary across organizations, and levels of government and counties with different legal and political traditions, giving way to a strong argument that can be made for the general relevance of these concepts in accordance with effective public management and in successful reform. (Lynn, 2001)

References

Goodnow, Frank J. 1893, 1902. Comparative Administrative Law: An Analysis of the Administrative Systems National and Local, of the United States, England, France, and Germany. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons.

Lynn, L. E. (2001). Public management. In Sage Publications (Ed.), Handbook of Public Administration (pp. 2-3). Retrieved from http://harrisschool.uchicago.edu/about/publications/working-papers/pdf/wp_01_24.pdf

Moore, Mark H. 1984. ‘A Conception of Public Management.’ In Teaching Public Management (1984, 1-
12).

Perry, J.L .and Kraemer, K.L. (1983). Public Management: Public and Private Perspectives. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield.

Rainey, Hal G. 1990. ‘Public Management: Recent Developments and Current Prospects,’ in Naomi B. Lynn and Aaron Wildavsky, eds., Public Administration: The State of the Discipline, Chatham, NJ: Chatham House, pp. 157-184. 1997. Understanding and Managing Public Organizations, Second Edition. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Woodrow Wilson, “The Study of Administration,” Political Science Quarterly 2(June 1887):

References: Goodnow, Frank J. 1893, 1902. Comparative Administrative Law: An Analysis of the Administrative Systems National and Local, of the United States, England, France, and Germany. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons. Lynn, L. E. (2001). Public management. In Sage Publications (Ed.), Handbook of Public Administration (pp. 2-3). Retrieved from http://harrisschool.uchicago.edu/about/publications/working-papers/pdf/wp_01_24.pdf Moore, Mark H. 1984. ‘A Conception of Public Management.’ In Teaching Public Management (1984, 1- 12). Perry, J.L .and Kraemer, K.L. (1983). Public Management: Public and Private Perspectives. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield. Rainey, Hal G. 1990. ‘Public Management: Recent Developments and Current Prospects,’ in Naomi B. Lynn and Aaron Wildavsky, eds., Public Administration: The State of the Discipline, Chatham, NJ: Chatham House, pp. 157-184. 1997. Understanding and Managing Public Organizations, Second Edition. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Woodrow Wilson, “The Study of Administration,” Political Science Quarterly 2(June 1887):