Politics Administration Dichotomy

Description

The political administration dichotomy is one of the theories of public administration. The theory advocates for the division of labor and authority between elected officials and administrators. Developed in the 19th Century, the idea sought to remove politicians from the field of public administration (Demir & Nyhan, 2008). The primary goal of the separation is to attain democracy, accountability, and efficient planning of general matters. However, the theory has faced immense criticism on whether it is applicable in practice or just theoretical reasoning that cannot be applied practically (Demir & Nyhan, 2008). Understanding this theory is important because it was developed during reforms in Europe and sought to attain efficiency and morality within the public sector.

Theory versus Practice

One of the schools of thought for the political administration dichotomy is the separation school of thought. The separation school of thought delves into the theory’s practical and normative implementation. According to the separation school of view, the government is divided into the political and administrative wings. On the one hand, politics primarily provides guidance and sets the policies that administrators follow. On the other hand, administrators are expected to provide competent and unbiased implantation based on politicians’ compromises (Demir, 1993). Significantly, this summarizes the practical aspect of separation reasoning in the political administration dichotomy.

On the theoretical front, proponents of the separation school of thought view the administration field differently from politics. Different sets of values, which are separate from politics, are needed to manage public affairs. Some of these values include competence, neutrality, and hierarchy (Demir, 1993). The separation school of thought avers that these virtues are missing in politics, yet they are crucial in managing public issues. Also, managing public affairs requires expertise, which is presumably missing among politicians. On the other hand, politicians are always deemed to pursue a personal agenda and cannot be trusted to deliver public services efficiently.

On the other hand, the political school of thought of the politics administration dichotomy advocates for a broad-based policy when dealing with public administration affairs. Unlike the separation theory, the political theory is against the outright exclusion of politics from public administration affairs. Instead, the theory views public administration as just a point of departure intended to rationalize the approach to matters that affect people. The thesis identifies skewed legislation processes, lack of technical know-how and resources, and the complex bureaucracy in public issues, such as the critical factors that require the separation of roles (Demir, 1993). To that end, proponents of the political school of thought also view public administrators as formulators of public policy.

The political school of thought of the political administration dichotomy is pegged on theoretical and practical grounds based on the above argument. On a theoretical basis, the political school of thought advocates that public administrators go beyond the mere implementation of the policies (Overeem, 2010). Subsequently, they must question the morality and value of public policy before performance. Therefore, the theoretical aspect of the political school of thought is against unquestioned obedience to political masters. In essence, public administrators are the ones who are in a better position to safeguard people’s interests in public administration.

Furthermore, on the practical front, proponents of the political school of thought advocate for the participation of public administrators in the management of public affairs in the U.S. There is a need for coalitions between politicians and administrators in the U.S. Accordingly, this is because the country’s political system is too diffused (Demir, 1993). One of the reasons behind such coalitions is a desire to represent the interests of special interest groups. Also, the pragmatic viewpoint rejects the treatment of public officials as subordinates of politicians. Instead, they should actively participate in the formulation of public policy.

Finally, the interaction school strikes a middle ground between the separation school of thought and the political school of thought. Proponents of the interaction theory advocate for collaboration between public administrators and politicians while maintaining their unique traditional roles (Demir, 1993). The interaction school is mainly based on practice. The primary argument is that there is increasing dynamism in the social, political, and economic policymaking environment, a factor that calls for increased interaction between public administrators and politicians (Rosenbloom, 2008). In addition, the school of thought argues against the traditional hierarchical structure in general matters. Instead, the theory advocates for creativity and innovation as crucial ways of solving general issues.

Reflection

I tend to believe that the politics administration dichotomy is more of a theoretical than a pragmatic field. It is speculative because it separates administration from politics, which is not reasonable in the contemporary world. Looking at how governments operate worldwide, the politicians are primarily in charge of public affairs, not administrators. Besides, the assertion that alleviates hierarchical power relations does not hold water. Politicians are mainly in order of experiences in their countries, while administrators perform the implementation role. In the contemporary world, public administrators must be obedient to politicians. In essence, administrators cannot question policies formulated by politicians.

References

Demir, T. (1993). Politics and administration: A review of research and some suggestions. University of Illinois at Springfield Department of Public Administration. http://www.fau.Edu/spa/pdf/Demir_PoliticsandAdministration_New_M S.pdf.

Demir, T., & Nyhan, R. C. (2008). The Politics-Administration Dichotomy: An Empirical Search for Correspondence between Theory and Practice. Public Administration Review, 68(1), 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00839.x

Overeem, P. (2010). The politics-administration dichotomy: a reconstruction. Leiden University.

Rosenbloom, D. (2008). The Politics-Administration Dichotomy in U.S. Historical Context. Public Administration Review, 68(1), 57–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00836.x

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

Politics Administration Dichotomy

In 750-1,000 words, do the following:
1. Describe the politics-administration dichotomy.
2. Explain both sides of the debate on whether the politics-administration dichotomy exists in practice or only in theory. Give specific real-world examples in your discussion.
3. Describe what side you tend to agree with more and why.
Use two to four scholarly resources to support your explanations.
Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.