Not what you're looking for?
Guide to Administration and Politics Dichotomy Essay
The issues of politics and administration dichotomy first raised by Woodrow Wilson continue to generate debate among scholars of public administration in modern time. While some think Wilson's idea was useful, others reject the idea as impossible. In a 2-3 page paper, 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? Support your case with examples.
The essay requires you to synthesize the reading material from last week with this week's reading material; specifically, Wilson's paper versus Norton Long's. You would recall from last week that Wilson advocates a division of government into two spheres: the political sphere and the administrative sphere. The political sphere makes the law i.e. Congress and the President. You may search for a flowchart of the legislative process online to give you an idea of how legislation is passed. Once the House and Senate agree on a bill, it is sent to the President who signs it into law. Think of a scenario where the President signs a bill creating the Clean Air Act. Per Wilson, the political sphere is done with their portion of the task. The administrative sphere comes into the picture to implement this Clean Air Act. For example, what levels of pollutants are acceptable? The Environmental Protection Agency enters the picture to set regulations and to ensure the car manufacturers and other industries reduce their pollution levels. According to Wilson, the EPA's role is not political, rather it is a business. Public administrators have been assigned a task and they rely on their expertise to execute that task. Public administrators must be given the discretion to work in their sphere without any political meddling. In Wilson's words: "Although politics sets the tasks for administration, it should not be suffered to manipulate its offices." This is the politics administration dichotomy model.
In order to write a convincing essay, review Norton Long's essay. For the complete article, see the attachment. How does Long differ from Wilson? How does Long perceive the role of politics in administration? Does he support a dichotomy? Do you agree that politics can be separate from administration? Does Robertson (from this week's case study) support Wilson or Long's view? Think about these questions as you write the paper.
(Please find the article attached.)
Solution
I can guide you in the writing of the essay; however, I cannot write it for you. This is an interesting question based on two thought processes and yet they are only different in their point of political intervention. This outline should guide you to complete the paper. I would consider examples of the EPA for your work. They are the easiest to find. The Corbell case noted here is fascinating and also a good example of politics and administration gone awry.
While it is true that agencies most often fall under the jurisdiction of the executive branch of government in the U.S., their mission is created within the laws of the legislative branch of government. In terms of simple explanation, the legislative branch of government makes the laws, the executive branch enforces the law, and the judicial branch settles disputes about the law, mostly the legality.
Looking at Weber's bureaucracy theory, we see the essence of bureaucracy lies in the administration of laws by agencies. These agencies are people designated to positions based on their expertise and do their job because it is their specialty. Weber is a better point of view because the question of politics is not part of his definition. The bureaucracy is managed by the rules. It is a formal hierarchical structure, and is impersonal in its execution. Working within a bureaucracy is based on the technical qualifications of the job, not the appointment of the person due to favors.
It is here we find the problem with the dichotomy and the government agency. First, not all employed in an agency are expert or gained their position by the technical qualifications. Those that did not are also most often found in the top of the hierarchy of the agency. These people are political appointees, appointed due to favors owed or because of party affiliation. This would make consistency and commitment to the work of the agency tenuous at best. Politics in appointing agency leaders leaves continuity in jeopardy. The parties change and so does the importance of the agency. The EPA is a good example. Under one administration, this may be an important focus and have much power. However, under another party's administration, it may be considered a hindrance to business and therefore lose its power.
Because the change in leadership in government may occur as often as every two years, the continuity and emphasis of the administration may change as well. Since the people are appointed, those who run agencies, there must be a learning curve and focuses must be reevaluated. A good example of the damage the lack of continuity brings is the court case of Corbell vs. "the current Secretary of the Interior." The name of the defendant changed several times throughout the court case because the secretary changed, as did other top administrators. Each change brought a need to regroup, reevaluate, and understand the needs of the case and to provide necessary, court ordered documents. For some this was very important, but for others it was less important. The case dragged on through several administrations. (http://www.indiantrust.com/) This case, which became Corbell vs. Salazar but previously had been filed and changed from Corbell vs. Babbitt, Corbell vs. Norton, and Corbell vs. Kempthorne, was a multi-billion dollar case of government mishandling of funds.
Management by rules is difficult to maintain under such circumstances where politics and change are part of the system. Administrators, who are ongoing, must adjust to the whims of the administration and the politics of the day. Decisions ultimately are not made under rules, but under the auspices of the concerns of the political party in charge.
Rules are also difficult when one branch makes the rules to be enforced by another branch. Mandates are often ambiguous, a show that the legislative branch addressed an issue, without any real focus on the issue. There may be limited or no power included in the legislation. This makes enforcement difficult if not impossible. The EPA is again a good example. Levels of certain chemicals released into the air are to be kept within a specified, or unspecified, range, however the enforcement is lacking, as are penalties. A rule may be created, but there is no money to fund the enforcement of the rule included. These hamper administrators in their effort to perform their jobs. Politics got the law passed, but it is the administrators who must figure out how to enforce them without funding and without authority to fund them.
It is important to remember only Congress can spend money. In other words, only Congress sets the budget and allows for funding of any and all rules, jobs and agencies of the government, including but not limited to those agencies under the executive branch.
If you have any further questions, please ask. Thank you for using BrainMass.