PADM_501_Discussion1
.docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Liberty University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
501
Subject
Political Science
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
9
Uploaded by JusticeFalconMaster270
A fundamental assumption of administrative reformers in the late 1800's and early 1900's was that politics could have only adverse affects on administration. How valid is that belief? Why? How, and to what extent, do current administrative structures and practices reflect that assumption? Also discuss the contributions of various scholars (at least five but preferably more) to the development of public administration as a discipline.
Early public administration reformers supported the idea of a complete separation between politics and administration to create an efficient, professional, and impartial civil service. This was in response to political patronage and corruption prevalent in government services during the late 1800s and early 1900s. The “spoils” system is famous for corrupt political and business deals in many cities such as Chicago and New York’s “Tammany Hall” which was a Democrat political machine. President Grant’s Administration, famously, had many corruption scandals but historians now believe some of them may had been overblown by his political rivals. The spoils system led to the assassination of President Garfield by a man who did not get appointed to a job he was seeking (
Krutz & Waskiewicz, 2021). Modern views acknowledge that the total separation approach is neither practical nor entirely desirable. Public administration today requires a balance between technical expertise and political awareness. The separation of politics and administration is not absolute in order to ensure effective governance and political accountability. Over time, this balance has been recalibrated in response to changing cultural and political landscapes.
Mary Parker Follett stressed the importance of participatory management, where organizations should operate as communities with managers and employees working collaboratively. Her ideas anticipated modern notions of democratic leadership and stakeholder engagement in public administration. Henry Fayol is known for his principles of management, which included concepts like division of work, authority and responsibility, discipline, unity of command, and esprit de corps. Luther Gulick's POSDCORB (Planning, Organizing, Staffing, Directing, Coordinating, Reporting, and Budgeting) framework was influential in shaping the understanding
of administrative functions. He also contributed to the development of theories on executive departments. Max Weber's theory of bureaucracy emphasizes rationality, hierarchy, specialization, and rule-based decision-making as key elements of effective administration. It is the foundation for modern bureaucratic systems. Frederick Taylor's principles of scientific management focused on improving efficiency and productivity in the workplace. He advocated using scientific methods to determine the best way of doing work, which influenced public administration and human resource management. Woodrow Wilson's essay "The Study of Administration" (1887) advocated for a separate field of public administration and the need to professionalize government management. He introduced the idea of a politics-administration dichotomy, advocating for the separation of political decision-making and administrative execution (Shafritz & Hyde, 2017; Milakovich & Gordon, 2013).
References
Krutz, G., & Waskiewicz, S. (2021). American Government 3e
. OpenStax. https://openstax.org/books/american-government-3e/pages/1-introduction Shafritz, J. M., & Hyde, A. C. (2017). Classics of public administration
. Cengage Milakovich, M. E., & Gordon, G. J. (2013). Public Administration in America
. Cengage. Classics of Public Administration
Shafritz & Hyde: Early Voices, The First Quarter Century
Public Administration in America by
Milakovich & Gordon: Chapters 1 — 3
The assumption held by administrative reformers in the late 1800s and early 1900s that politics could only have adverse effects on administration is an idea deeply rooted in the history of public administration. This view is largely shaped by the Progressive Era’s reaction to the widespread patronage
and corruption in government service, famously characterized by the "spoils system." The works you mentioned, "Classics of Public Administration" by Shafritz & Hyde, and "Public Administration in America" by Milakovich & Gordon, provide essential insights into this belief and its evolution.
Shafritz & Hyde: Classics of Public Administration – Early Voices, The First Quarter Century
1.
The Dichotomy of Politics and Administration:
This book discusses the foundational idea in public administration that politics and administration are separate spheres. Reformers like Woodrow Wilson and Frank Goodnow argued that administrative decisions should be made based on expertise, efficiency, and merit rather than political considerations. They believed that political interference often led to inefficiency, corruption, and nepotism.
2.
Progressive Era Reforms:
The early voices in public administration, as covered in the book, were reacting to the perceived inefficiencies of the political patronage system. Their argument was that a professionalized, non-partisan civil service would be more efficient and effective.
3.
Scientific Management:
The influence of scientific management (or Taylorism) is also significant in this period. The belief was that administration could be made more efficient
by applying scientific principles to management, further separating it from the unpredictable nature of politics.
Milakovich & Gordon: Public Administration in America – Chapters 1 to 3
1.
Evolution of Public Administration Thought:
These chapters likely explore how the field of public administration has evolved, emphasizing the early separation between politics and administration. This separation was considered necessary to prevent the inefficiencies and corruptions of political influences.
2.
Critiques and Limitations:
They might also discuss the critiques of this dichotomy. Over time, scholars and practitioners have recognized that complete separation is unrealistic and, in some cases, undesirable. Politics inevitably shapes policy priorities, and effective administration requires an understanding of the political context.
3.
Modern Perspectives:
The more contemporary view in public administration acknowledges the interplay between politics and administration. It's understood that while administrative decisions should be based on expertise and evidence, they cannot be entirely separated from political values and objectives.
Validity of the Belief
1.
Historical Context:
In the context of its time, the belief was arguably valid, as it addressed the immediate problems of patronage and inefficiency. It was a necessary corrective to the abuses of the spoils system.
2.
Contemporary Understanding:
Today, the belief is seen as overly simplistic. Effective public administration requires both technical expertise and an understanding of the political environment. The two realms are intertwined, and each influences the other.
3.
Real-World Complexity:
In practice, the line between politics and administration is often blurred. Administrators do not merely implement policy in a vacuum; they often have to make choices that are inherently political, involving value judgments and prioritization.
4.
Need for Balance:
The current consensus is that a balance is needed. While administration should strive for efficiency, transparency, and expertise, it also needs to be
responsive to political directives that reflect the democratic will of the people.
In summary, while the early reformers' belief in a strict separation between politics and administration served a purpose in its time, the contemporary understanding of public administration recognizes the complexity and interdependence of these two realms.
The assumption held by administrative reformers in the late 1800s and early 1900s that politics could only have adverse effects on administration is an idea deeply rooted in the history of public administration. This view is largely shaped by the Progressive Era’s reaction to the widespread patronage
and corruption in government service, famously characterized by the "spoils system."
The assumption that politics and administration should be entirely separate, as championed by early public administration reformers, was based on the desire to create an efficient, professional,
and impartial civil service. This perspective arose as a response to the widespread patronage and corruption prevalent in government services of the late 1800s and early 1900s. However, the modern understanding of public administration acknowledges that a complete separation is neither feasible nor entirely desirable. The reasons for this shift and the extent to which current
administrative structures and practices reflect this evolved understanding involve several key aspects:
Why the Shift in Perspective?
1.
Complexity of Public Policy:
Modern public policies are complex and often require administrators to exercise discretion and judgment. These decisions can have political implications, making a strict separation unrealistic.
2.
Democratic Accountability:
Public administrators need to be responsive to elected officials and, by extension, the public. This responsiveness inherently involves navigating
political priorities and values.
3.
Policy Implementation:
The implementation of policy is rarely a neutral or purely technical task. It often involves interpreting policy goals, dealing with incomplete or conflicting guidelines, and making decisions that can have significant political implications.
4.
Interdependence of Politics and Administration:
Modern governance recognizes that political goals and administrative expertise are interdependent. Effective public service delivery requires a combination of political direction and administrative efficiency.
Reflection in Current Administrative Structures and Practices
1.
Merit-Based Civil Service Systems:
The influence of early reformers is still evident in the widespread adoption of merit-based civil service systems, designed to ensure that hiring and promotion are based on competence rather than political connections.
2.
Regulatory Frameworks:
Many contemporary administrative structures include checks and balances to mitigate undue political influence while ensuring accountability. This includes oversight mechanisms, transparency requirements, and legal frameworks guiding administrative actions.
3.
Public Engagement and Accountability:
Modern administrations often emphasize public engagement and accountability, reflecting a balance between technical efficiency and responsiveness to political and public expectations.
4.
Policy Advisory Roles:
Administrators frequently serve in policy advisory roles, where they must balance technical expertise with an understanding of political priorities and constraints.
5.
Ethical Standards and Training:
Ethical training and standards for public servants emphasize both professional competence and an awareness of the public trust, which includes navigating the political implications of administrative actions.
6.
Performance Management Systems:
Performance management in public administration
often incorporates both efficiency metrics and measures that reflect broader political and social objectives.
7.
Interagency Collaboration:
Current practices often involve collaboration across different levels of government and agencies, requiring a blend of administrative acumen and political savvy to navigate complex intergovernmental dynamics.
Extent of Reflection
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help