Politic Administration Dichotomy Essay Example

political systems, despite efforts to contest it. Woodrow Wilson, a political reformer, executive leader, cholera expert, and statesman, was one of the first individuals to clearly differentiate between politics and administration. During the Progressive movement of the late nineteenth century in 1887, Wilson authored his essay "The Study of Public Administration" which was published in the Political Science Quarterly.

The birth of this movement in the United States was a response to the need for reform in American governance. It aimed to address issues such as political spoils and the patronage system, which were implemented by President Andrew Jackson. The patronage system assigned administrative positions exclusively to loyal supporters of the ruling party, resulting in less competent and sometimes unqualified individuals joining public service. Consequently, efficiency within public administration suffered.

Woodrow Wilson, influenced by the progressive movement, advocated for government reform. He emphasized the importance of improving public administration to enhance its efficiency and combat corruption. In his essay, Wilson stressed that treating public administration as a science was crucial in addressing administrative system flaws. This marked the birth of public administration as an independent field of study.

According to Willow's View on Politics and Administration, Woodrow Wilson is widely recognized as the originator of the idea of politics and administration. Wilson believed that politics encompasses policy formulation, whereas administration focuses on its execution. He referred to public administration as the meticulous and organized implementation of public law. Wilson viewed public administration as a separate field from politics, which he considered to be a business-oriented field. He emphasized that administration operates independently from politics.

Administrative questions should not be treated as political questions. While politics

sets the agenda, it should not be allowed to manipulate administrative offices. According to Wilson, public administration is similar to the methods of a counting house in society or machinery in a manufactured product. Politics belongs to statesmen, while administration is the domain of technical officials. Wilson believed that administrators should refrain from involvement in the political process.

Wilson attempted to establish a clear separation between politics and administration. He proposed the theory of the politics-administration dichotomy, advocating for the creation of a technologically proficient and politically impartial administrative system for a democratic society. This system should be distinct from the political system while still being subject to democratic oversight. Wilson argued that by separating public administration from practical politics and the prevailing spoils system in the ASSAI, it could adopt a more business-like approach and progress scientifically on its own.

Thus, Wilson aimed to emphasize the importance of effective management and ensure it remained separate from political bias. According to Wilson, the examination of public administration was the most recent outcome of the scientific study of politics that commenced two centuries ago. The fundamental principles of politics form the basis of public administration. Wilson believed that while the study of public administration should be distinct from politics, it should always be connected to its guiding principles and truths.

Wilson viewed public administration as something beyond technical details and believed it should be carried out within a political framework. He saw "politics and public administration as two sides of a coin." Frank Gooding, another contemporary of Woodrow Wilson, also expressed concerns over politics interfering with administration. Gooding made a clear distinction between politics and

administration, defining the former as the expression of the state's will and the latter as the execution of that will. In fact, W.F.

Willoughby took the radical step of not just dividing administration from politics, but elevating it to the same level as the legislative, executive, and Judiciary branches of government. Albert Sticking believed that 'public servants should have singular duties'; those in executive administration should not be involved in general legislation, and those involved in general legislation, who determine government policies for all departments, should not interfere with administrative details.

The division between policy and administration was strongly supported by American public administration specialists and remained a prevailing theory until recently. However, as administrative reforms were implemented in American public life, administration started to reconsider their views on this division. John Fanner acknowledged the importance of keeping policy and administration separate but cautioned against disregarding the potential problems with such a separation of powers.

The author recognized that the concept of permanently establishing policy matters as constitutional barriers, similar to the three branches of government (legislative, executive, and judiciary), was not supported. It is acknowledged that there are instances where policy matters and administrative action overlap. The author also acknowledged that politics and administration cannot always be completely separated and emphasized the importance of avoiding excessive interference between the two.

The author acknowledges that achieving success in this area will largely depend on the removal of partisan politics from administration and ensuring that technical and expert personnel have job security. The author emphasizes that this responsibility applies both to administrative personnel, who should avoid political involvement, and to political officers, who should refrain from

interfering with administration. These comments highlight the persistence of patronage and spoils politics in American public life.

In the late 1930s, Marshall Idioms reevaluated the relationship between politics and administration and found that they are not separate but rather interconnected processes. By 1940, Carl Frederica went on to criticize the notion of a strict division between politics and administration, calling it a misleading distinction that had become entrenched in the thinking of both theorists and practitioners.

Eng S. M emphasized in 1992 the strong connection between administration and politics, highlighting the crucial role played by the legislature in creating the administration through approving key appointments. It is commonly argued that those who control funding also have control over decision making, but this argument fails to acknowledge the permanence of the bureaucracy or administration. While the legislature may change frequently, the administration remains steadfast. The rigid procedures, rules, and regulations of the administration are rarely interfered with by the legislature and judiciary.

The administration can often exercise its wide and discretionary powers. Nowadays, it is challenging to clearly distinguish between policy-making and policy implementation. The administration's primary function is policy implementation, but it is not uncommon for it to also engage in policy-making during the policy-implementation processes. Legislation is often incomplete, leaving gaps that give the administration the authority to act in a manner it considers necessary or reasonable.

Frequently, the executive is given significant and unrestrained discretion by the legislature. The executive then exploits this power, often using terms like "public interest" and "national interest" as justifications. As a result, administrative decisions are made based on factors that administrators cannot fully control, limiting effective oversight

over the extensive and discretionary powers of administration.

'Law making is now primarily conducted by administrators, and disputes settlement is predominantly carried out by courts,' asserts Robert S. Larch. The role of the administrative organ has evolved beyond administrative and policy implementation, encompassing extensive regulatory and judicial or quasi-judicial functions. The intersection of politics and administration constitutes a crucial concern in public administration.

The persistence of the dichotomy idea can be attributed to several factors. It is convenient to use this concept to explain the division of roles through complete separation, as it is easier to understand than a model based on shared roles. Moreover, the separation model does not actually restrict the policy contributions of administrators in practice. Additionally, the dichotomy idea protects administrators from scrutiny and benefits elected officials, who can shift responsibility for unpopular sections to administrators (Peters, 1995; 177-8).

The founders believed in the separation of politics and administration in public administration. However, their goal was to eliminate political interference in public administration practices. It should be noted that the founders did not completely reject the involvement of public administrators in policy making. They emphasized both on separating administrators from political interference and allowing their input in the design and implementation of public policy.