Are Administration And Politics Dichoto
Are Administration and Politics Dichotomy Practical/Workable?
Derek Brown
Grantham University
Abstract
The issues of politics and administration dichotomy first raised by Woodrow Wilson continue to generate debate among scholars of public administration in modern time. Why some think Wilson’s idea was useful, others reject the idea as impossible. And in your opinion, is that distinction practical and workable? What are the advantages and disadvantages of using such a dichotomy today as a way to advance that field of study?
Discussion
Interests in public administration dates back in time as far back as Plato’s The Republic, in which Plato discusses administrative issues of governance. However, in the last 100 years public administration has become a formal field of study in North America. This movement was lead by thinkers known as the Progressives - namely men like Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Frederick Taylor. The Progressives view of public administration was that there was one best way to govern the people. Their works focussed on setting up a system of administration that was rooted in this one best way of thinking. Over the past 100 years, scholars have built on the thinking of the Progressives, elaborating on their core concepts, descriptions of government and normative theories. One of the many areas that it focuses on areas Wilson’s political vs. administrative dichotomy. He defined public administration simply as "government in action; it is the executive, the operative, the most visible side of government, and is of course as old as government itself" . If you read Woodrow Wilson "The Study of Administration", it describes his thoughts about using ministrant (function of the government) and constituent ideas to represent political and apolitical branches respectively and relates that constituent functions were given very important tasks, such as the protection of liberty, life, and property, while ministrant functions
Derek Brown
Grantham University
Abstract
The issues of politics and administration dichotomy first raised by Woodrow Wilson continue to generate debate among scholars of public administration in modern time. Why some think Wilson’s idea was useful, others reject the idea as impossible. And in your opinion, is that distinction practical and workable? What are the advantages and disadvantages of using such a dichotomy today as a way to advance that field of study?
Discussion
Interests in public administration dates back in time as far back as Plato’s The Republic, in which Plato discusses administrative issues of governance. However, in the last 100 years public administration has become a formal field of study in North America. This movement was lead by thinkers known as the Progressives - namely men like Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Frederick Taylor. The Progressives view of public administration was that there was one best way to govern the people. Their works focussed on setting up a system of administration that was rooted in this one best way of thinking. Over the past 100 years, scholars have built on the thinking of the Progressives, elaborating on their core concepts, descriptions of government and normative theories. One of the many areas that it focuses on areas Wilson’s political vs. administrative dichotomy. He defined public administration simply as "government in action; it is the executive, the operative, the most visible side of government, and is of course as old as government itself" . If you read Woodrow Wilson "The Study of Administration", it describes his thoughts about using ministrant (function of the government) and constituent ideas to represent political and apolitical branches respectively and relates that constituent functions were given very important tasks, such as the protection of liberty, life, and property, while ministrant functions