Politic Administration Dichotomy Essay
It Is thus the continuously active, “business” part of overspent, concerned with carrying out the law, as made by legislative bodies (or other authoritative agents) and interpreted by courts, through the processes of organization and management. Some of the framers of the U. S. Constitution and some early U. S. Political leaders?for example, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson?gave attention to problems of public administration and wrote on them in ways that foreshadowed later developments.
Indeed, there is no sharp point in history where the story of Public Administration begins. However, an essay by the hen young Woodrow Wilson (1887) is often taken as the symbolic beginning. Certainly it was a remarkable essay in its perceptiveness, persuasiveness, and influence. Willow’s basic postulate was that “It is getting to be harder to run a constitution than to frame one” ([1 887] 1953, p. 67). Up to the nineteenth century, he noted, the predominant concerns of the study of governmental affairs were political philosophy, constitutional arrangements, and lawmaking. F the discipline of political science, evidenced by the creation of the American Political Science Association in 1903. It is important that almost without exception those who might be called the founding fathers of Public Administration were trained as political scientists (rather than, say, Jurists or economists) and tended to view Public Administration as a part or sub discipline of political science. The relationships between politics and public administration have evolved through time.
From the time of John Locke and Nonentities till today it has been the subject of debate among the scholars, administrators, politicians and others. The American statesmen right from the beginning of their Republic has observed a differentiation teens policy matters and administrative matters. This developed in to a dichotomy between politics and administration. Although this thesis was finally abandoned after the Second World War, yet this ancient administrative proverb that politics and administration are separate enterprises continues to be debated.
As Guy Peters remarks, ‘Although any number of others have attempted to lay this proverb to rest, it has displayed amazing powers of survival and reappears in any number of setting in any number of political systems. It was Woodrow Wilson, a combination of political reformer and executive leader, cholera and statesman, politician and administrator, who made one of the first dogmatic distinctions between politics and administration. In the Political Science quarterly in 1887, Wilson wrote his essay, “The Study of Public Administration” in the era of the Progressive movement which covered the last two decades of the nineteenth Century.
In the United States, this movement was developed in response to reform of the American administration which was suffering from the great evils of the day, spoils in politics and the patronage system, introduced by President Andrew Jackson. Under this system only the loyal political supporters of the Party Victorious at the Polls were appointed to administrative posts As a consequence less qualified and sometimes unqualified people entered the Public service and contributed to the increasing inefficiency of public administration.
Influenced by the progressive movement Woodrow Wilson was also convinced that there was a need to reform the government and the reforms should be in the field of public administration so as to make it more efficient. It was in this context of prevalent maladministration and the consequent administrative reforms that Wilson emphasized in his essay, the development of the science of public administration as the appropriate cure for corrupt and inefficient administrative system. This vision of Wilson also marked the emergence of public administration as a separate and independent field of Study.
Willow’s View on Politics and Administration Woodrow Wilson is usually regarded as the Originator Of the doctrine of politics- spheres of politics and administration. In his opinion, politics is dealt with questions of policy formulation; administration is dealt with carrying them out. He defined public administration as “detailed and systematic execution of public law’. Wilson characterized public administration as a field of business . He Said, “the field of administration is a field of business….. Removed from the hurry and strife of politics” He Stated that administration lies outside the proper sphere of politics.
Administrative questions are not political questions. Although politics sets the tasks for, it should not be suffered to manipulate its offices”. He further observed that “public administration is a Part of political life only as the methods of counting house re a Part of the life of the society; only as machinery is part of a manufactured product”. To Wilson, politics is the special Province of the statesman and administration that of the technical official. Wilson Wanted that administrators should not involve themselves in the political process .
Thus Wilson tried to establish the distinction between politics and administration. By expounding the politics – Administration dichotomy theory, Wilson urged strongly for the creation of a technically competent and politically neutral administrative system for a democracy. It should be separate from the political system, although it is under democratic control. Wilson believed that if public administration could be separated from the practical politics and the influences of the spoils system prevailed at that time in the ASSAI, it might become more business-like and develop on scientific lines in its own right.
Thus his goal was to call attention to the need for efficient administration and to keep it out of Partisan Politics. Wilson saw the Study Of public administration as the latest fruit of that Study of science of politics which was begun some two housing two hundred Years ago. The foundations of public administration “are those deep and permanent principles of politics”. Thus for Wilson, it is said, the Study of public administration, derived from the Study of politics, was to be distinguished from it, but never divorced from its “maxims” and “truths”.
To Wilson, public administration was much more than technical detail and it was to be conducted in a political context . Thus he treated “politics and public administration as two sides of a coin”. Another contemporary of Woodrow Wilson who was greatly concerned about he ‘meddling’ of politics with administration was Frank Gooding. He made a clear distinction between politics and administration. He defined the former as the expression of the will of the state’ and the latter as the execution of that will’. Indeed, W. F.
Willoughby went to the extreme of not merely separating administration from politics, but setting it up as the fourth arm of government along with the legislative, the executive and the Judiciary. Albert Sticking argued that ‘public servants must have duties of only one class’; that the men in the executive administration should eave nothing to do with general legislation and the men that who men who have to do with general legislation-the deliberating and deciding as to be policy of all departments of Government-should not meddle with the details of administration’.
This sharp dichotomy between policy and administration was largely advocated by American specialists in public administration and the theory persisted until recent times. INSEPARABILITY OF ADMINISTRATION AND POLITICS As administrative reforms were gradually introduced in to the American Public life Administration began to modify their existing views on the dichotomy between ileitis and administration. While John Fanner saw the need for one not to meddle with the other, he however warned: “Let no apostle of political realism think that advocates of such a separation of powers are unaware of its doctrinaire pitfalls.
They did not advocate that it be embalmed into constitutional breakwaters designed to stand for centuries as was the classical threefold division into legislative, executive and Judiciary functions. There is no denial that in a considerable number of instances questions of policy will be closely intermingled with administrative action”, He recognized that “politics administration cannot always be separated and isolated” that one should not encroach upon the other in a meddlesome manner.
He also recognized that the success to attained in this direction will depend largely upon the extent to which partisan politics is kept out of administration and upon the extent to which partisan politics is kept out of administration and upon the assurance of tenure given to technical and expert personnel’. This, he emphasized, will entails Just as great an obligation for the administrative personnel to abstain from political introverts as for political officers to keep their hands off administration. In this comments, one can see that the ghost of patronage and spoils politics still haunting American public life.
By the closing years of the third decade of this century, the issue of the dichotomy between politics and administration had been finally laid to rest. Thus in 1937, Marshall Idioms, after examining afresh the concept of government in its relation to politics and administration, observed that the two processes of administration and politics or policy are co-ordinate rather than exclusive and by 1940 Carl Frederica finally concluded that the idea of a dichotomy between politics and administration is a ‘misleading distinction’ which had become a fetish, a stereotype in the minds of theorists and practitioners alike.
In 1992, Eng S. M made a very strong contribution as regard the inseparability of administration and politics; “the legislature, it is argued, is the creator of the administration itself, since it has to approve major appointments in the administration. And, the arguments go on, ‘he who pays the piper dictates the tune’. But this is a weak argument when we insider the permanent nature of the bureaucracy or the administration. While the legislature may come and go like the wind, the administration stands still like a rock. It rigid procedures, rules and regulation are hardly tampered with by the legislature or the Judiciary.
In this way, the administration can often have its in exercising its wide and discretionary powers’. He further added, “Now a days, it is difficult to analyze clearly the policy-making and policy implementation dichotomy. The basic function of the administration is policy implementation. But it is not unusual to find he administration involving itself in policy-making even in the policy-implementation processes. More often, legislation is sketchy or skeletal, leaving many gaps and thereby conferring powers on the administration to act in a way it deems “necessary’ or “reasonable.
Quite often, the legislature bestows more or less and unqualified or uncontrolled discretion on the executive. The administration then takes advantage of this and has his ways, sometimes using as its Umbrella, some beautiful phrases like “public Interest”, National Interest”, and the likes, and, usually, administrative sections are arrived at ‘upon the basis of considerations not entirely susceptible of inherent in administrators for effective control of the vast and discretionary powers of administration.
Robert S. Larch maintains that: “Anyone who still believes that law making is mostly done by legislatures, or disputes settling are mostly done by courts, is far behind times Administrators do that now’. The main task of the administrative organ is no longer merely administrative or policy-implementation. It performs vast regulatory and Judicial or quasi-Judicial functions. The issue of politics and administration is one of the most important issues in public administration.
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 it is to explain than a model based on sharing roles, particularly since the separation model does not limit the actual policy contributions of administrators in practice. At the same time, the dichotomy idea shields administrators from scrutiny and serves the interest of elected officials who can pass responsibility for unpopular sections to administrators (Peters, 1995; 177-8).
In the founders’ view of public administration, politics and administration should be separated. But, it must be noted that their intention was to remove political interferes of public administration practices. It can be say that founders never clearly rejected the role of public administrators in policy making. They simultaneously emphasized on separation and insulation of administrators from political interference, on one hand, and interaction and incorporation of administrative contribution in the design and the implementation of public policy, on the other hand.