Chapter 1 Understanding Politics and Administration

Administration lies outside the proper sphere of politics. Administrative questions are not political questions. Although politics sets the tasks for administration, it should not be suffered to manipulate its offices.

——Woodrow Wilson

Politics-Administration

An examination of early trends in the study of public administration reveals two interesting although somewhat contradictory streams of thought. There is the view that public administration is made distinctive by its relationship to the governmental process and that this relationship requires that special attention be paid to such normative concerns as justice, freedom, and responsibility. There is also the view that after decisions are made in a democratic manner, their implementation depends on the same managerial techniques employed in private industry. The eventual ascendancy of the latter view point is represented by the politics-administration dichotomy, whose symbolic importance cannot be overemphasized.

As is often the case, however, the symbol somewhat exceeds the reality. Many who have commented on the earliest writings in public administration have placed far too much emphasis on the politics-administration dichotomy as a key to the early theoretical writings. For example, Howard McCurdy described it as“the holy writ of American public administration.”（1977:19）True enough, the politics-administration dichotomy was mentioned by a number of early writers. Yet it was hardly“holy writ.”Moreover, the dichotomy was never as sharply drawn as many later commentators like to believe.

Especially at the local level, where the council-manager form of government as signed the policy role to the council and the administrative role to the city manager, a fairly sharp distinction seemed to be proposed. Yet, even here, areas of responsibility are often overlapped. Surprisingly, the interaction of politics and administration actually characterizes two formal works usually cited as advocating a strict politics-administration dichotomy:Frank Goodnow's Policy and Administration（1900）and W. F. Willoughby's The Government of Modern States（1936）, both of which take a more carefully reasoned position than is generally attributed to them. In fact, Goodnow's argument can be read as fundamentally opposed to the separation of governmental functions into the executive, legislative, and judicial branches.

Reconciling Theory and Reality

Goodnow's book is first of all a critique of the formalist view of government, which holds that the study of the Constitution or other legal requirements is sufficient to understand the operations of government actors. To the contrary he argues, the strict separation of powers contained in the United States Constitution has been violated many times and for good reason. Specifically, the theory of assigning to the legislature the role of making policy and to the executive the role of carrying it out is not reflected in the actual practice of government. Therefore, it is appropriate to rethink the formal theory of separation of powers so that our theory might more closely match our practice.

True enough, as Goodnow points out, it is possible to distinguish, for analytical purposes, those operations of the state that are essential to the“expression of its will”and those necessary to the“execution of that will.”（1900:15）Politics is concerned with the expression of the will of the state in policies; administration is concerned with the execution of that will. But, “while the two primary functions of government are susceptible to differentiation, the organs of government to which the discharge of these functions is entrusted cannot be clearly defined.”（1900:16）Although one organ of government, the legislature, is primarily concerned with expressing the will of the state, it is not the only organ of government to do so, nor does that activity preclude its acting as well to affect the execution of that will. Similarly, agents of the government charged with executing the will of the state often have enough discretionary power that they may be said to express the will of the state.

Goodnow's comments on the relationship between central and local government responsibilities are also instructive. He notes that legislative centralization is often accompanied by administrative decentralization. In such cases, the local administrative agency may“change the will of the state as expressed by the body representing the state as a whole and so adapt it to what are believed to be the needs of the local community.”（1900: 50）Although Goodnow specifically recommends somewhat greater administrative centralization（accompanied by greater legislative autonomy for local governments）, his analysis of this point is again in direct contrast to a strict separation of politics and administration. His point is clear:the formal legal bases for the division of governmental responsibilities, both horizontally and vertically, are substantially altered by governmental practice.

Extending the Branches of Government

Many of the same comments apply to W. F. Willoughby's examination of the various functions of government. In an earlier book（Willoughby and Willoughby,1891:42），he comments that“the duties of the executive are to enforce and apply the laws of the nation after they are made by the legislature and interpreted by the courts.”However，by the time of his 1919 text（revised 1936），Willoughby recognized certain difficulties in this position. Here he contends that there are not just three branches of government，as generally conceived，but instead five classes of governmental powers:the legislative，judicial，executive，electorate，and administrative branches. In addition to the three traditional branches，Willoughby argues，the electorate should be recognized，because the source of authority in a democracy shifts from the ruler to the people. Also，the electorate has its own“definite and distinguishable functions.”（1936:217）Similarly，the administrative branch should be recognized，since there is a“difference between the function of seeing that laws are enforced and that of actually doing things the law（s）call for.”（1936:219）To Willoughby，“the executive function is essentially political，（and）the administrative function is concerned with putting into effect... policies as determined by the other organs.”（1936:220）While arguing against the traditional separation of powers，Willoughby does recognize a distinction between policy-making and policy-executing activities，although that distinction is not absolute.

The Interaction of Policy and Administration

A more persuasive practical and theoretical understanding of politics and administration is presented in Leonard White's classic text Introduction to the Study of Public Administration（1948b）. While acknowledging that a certain separation of policy and administration is implicit in his definition of public administration, White also recognizes the interaction between the two spheres. He finds particularly noteworthy an increasing trend toward“executive initiative in public policy, ”which occurs both as administrators exercise discretion in carrying out vague or general legislation and as the advice and counsel of permanent civil servants are sought in the development of policy recommendations. Importantly, White points out the special advantage of employing administrative personnel in policy formulation, recognizing that their impartiality and technical skill may equip them to make especially good recommendations. At one point, White even comments that bureaucrats may be in the best position to make policy:“Administration may be the best-equipped branch of government to make genuinely public policy free from overwhelming favoritism to one particular pressure group.”Although this point is not elaborated and specific mechanisms for enhancing the policy potential of the bureaucracy are not explored, White does open the possibility that“democratic administration”might parallel“democratic policy, ”presumably overlapping with each other in many instances.

Administrators as Significant Policy Actors

In any case, the emerging orthodoxy—that administrators are fully implicated in the policy process—was summarized in the late forties in a series of lectures by Paul H. Appleby（1949）. Appleby begins by noting the tendency of many academicians and practitioners to view policy and administration as separate activities and, in turn, to see administrators as having little or no policy-making role. To the contrary, Appleby argues, administrators are significant policy actors who influence the policy-making process in several ways, most importantly in the exercise of administrative discretion:“Administrators are continually laying down rules for the future, and administrators are continually determining what the law is, what it means in terms of action.”（1949:7）In addition, administrators also influence policy through recommendations to the legislature. As a result, according to Appleby, “public administration is policymaking.”（1949:170）What is perhaps most distinctive about Appleby's formulation, however, is his philosophical tone—for administrators to be involved in making policy is perfectly appropriate in a democratic society, where“there is always more of politics.”（1949:27）Such involvement is to be expected in a democratic society, but it does raise again the need to examine the relationship between administrative action and democratic governance.

The Lingering Influence of Politics-Administration

A reading of Goodnow's and Willoughby's original formulations of the distinction between politics and administration indicates that their treatment is far less rigid than many, even now, have assumed. Both, in fact, argue against the formal, legal view that government operations follow the constitutional separation of powers into the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. In contrast Goodnow and Willoughby argue that the relationship between such governmental functions as policy making and policy execution is much more complex than was previously realized. They are indeed preoccupied with the relationship between politics and administration, but they are not preoccupied with the distinction between politics and administration. The role of the bureaucracy throughout the policy-making process was soon not only recognized but emphasized. One might well wonder, then, how the politics-administration dichotomy gained its remarkable symbolic power and, even more to the point, how it continues to guide the study of public administration.

Limiting the Field

In my view, there are three reasons for the continuing influence of politics-administration. The first two derive from an interesting and very important shift in administrative studies that occurred with Willoughby's 1927 text, Principles of Public Administration. Where earlier studies had seen administration as a function that occurs within various governmental settings, including the legislature and the judiciary, Willoughby defines the study of public administration as concerned with the“operations of the administrative branch only.”（1927:1）This distinction is extremely important in at least two ways. First, attaching administration to a particular institution, a particular branch of government, does in fact imply a politics-administration dichotomy, at least to the extent of saying that administration can be studied apart from the political process. Second, as Marshall Dimock（1936）soon pointed out, such an approach confirms an interpretation of administrative studies as concerned only with improving the managerial efficiency of highly structured organizations.

Despite or perhaps because of these features—features that are examined more closely a little later in this chapter—the shift from a process or functional definition of public administration to an institutional view was soon confirmed. A very influential text by Simon, Smithburg, and Thompson contains the following statement（1950:7）:“By public administration is meant, in common usage, the activities of the executive branches of national, state, and local governments; independent boards and commissions set up by Congress and state legislatures; government corporations; and certain other agencies of a specialized character.”Subsequent texts did not focus so distinctly on the executive branch but did make it clear that government employees or government agencies were their primary concern. For most purposes, public administration came to be government administration, mainly the operations of the executive branch.

Beginning with Willoughby's institutional definition of public administration, we find a confirmation of the politics-administration dichotomy without any discussion of it. All the academic and practical discussions of the issue during the first half of the twentieth century pointed out the interdependence of policy and administration. Many writings were serious and sustained attacks on the supposed dichotomy. As a theoretical matter, the politics-administration dichotomy was soon dead（although it is perhaps more accurate to say that it had never been alive）. As a practical matter, however, because Willoughby and later writers directed their works to the practical problems of a specific audience—administrative personnel—the politics-administration dichotomy lived on in an institutional definition of public administration. And to the extent that public administration is still defined in institutional terms, the dichotomy survives.

资料来源：[美]罗伯特·B·登哈特（RobertB.Denhardt）．公共组织理论（第五版）[M]．扶松茂，丁力，译．竺乾威，校．北京：中国人民大学出版社，2011.

Ⅰ Please answer these questions about the text.

1. Will you explain the conception of“politics-administration”?

2. What is the main idea of Goodnow's book?

3. What is the“lingering influence of politics-administration”?

4. According to Willoughly, how many classes of governmental powers?

5. What's the relationship between central and local government responsibilities inGoodnow's view?

6. Say something about the contribution of Willoughby, Goodnow and Appleby to politics and administration.

7. Why does politics-administration have the continuing influence?

Ⅱ Translate the following paragraph in to Chinese.

A more persuasive practical and theoretical understanding of politics and administration is presented in Leonard White's classic text Introduction to the Study of Public Administration. While acknowledging that a certain separation of policy and administration is implicit in his definition of public administration, White also recognizes the interaction between the two spheres. He finds particularly noteworthy an increasing trend toward“executive initiative in public policy, ”which occurs both as administrators exercise discretion in carrying out vague or general legislation and as the advice and counsel of permanent civil servants are sought in the development of policy recommendations. Importantly, White points out the special advantage of employing administrative personnel in policy formulation, recognizing that their impartiality and technical skill may equip them to make especially good recommendations.

Ⅲ Discussion.

Topic One:In your opinion, what is the interaction of policy and administration?

Topic Two:Do you agree with Appleby's opinion that public administration is policy making? Why?