Suchergebnisse

Dwight Waldo (1913–2000) is commonly known as a "heterodox" critic of the dichotomy between politics and administration. But is this reputation supported by his writings? It seems to be primarily based on The Administrative State (1948) and other early publications, in which he conceptualized politics/administration narrowly as deciding/executing and, indeed, sharply criticized it. Waldo's later publications, by contrast, offer much broader conceptualizations and a more ambivalent, even positive appraisal of the dichotomy. Such conceptualizations are also found in an important unpublished book Waldo worked on during several phases of his career. On the basis of these published and unpublished writings, we should reconsider Waldo's reputation and, pursuing his line of reasoning, reconceptualize the politics–administration dichotomy as a layered construct and reappreciate it as a constitutional doctrine.

The development of the study and practice of public administration has been remarkably characterized by antinomies and dichotomies. The article discusses the concept of antinomies and dichotomies as analytical tools that enrich the study and teaching of Public Administration. This essay is a review of how the discipline shaped its intellectual foundations as rooted on antinomic and dichotomous moorings. While the politics-administration dichotomy, which is now considered as the root theory in American Public Administration, has been traced to Wilson (1887), it was Waldo perhaps who gave prominent attention to propagating the antinomic tradition by identifying, outlining and discussing other contradictions and paradoxes that helped animate theorizing and discourse in the field. The article then proceeds to identify and discuss what can be considered as the neglected and overlooked antinomies and dichotomies in administrative thought today. Their significance in present day realities and problems, not just in administrative thought but in policymaking, dictates that they should be given more analytical scrutiny.

We add new data to the long-standing debate about the interface between politics and administration, deploying theory and evidence indicating that it varies. It can be either a "purple zone" of interaction between the red of politics and the blue of administration, or a clear line. We use survey responses from 1,012 mostly senior public managers in the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand, along with semi-structured interviews with 42 of them, to examine the extent to which public managers perceive that they "cross" the line or go into a zone, and the ways in which they do so. Our inclusion of a zone as well as a line recasts how roles and relationships between politicians and administrators can be conceived. Moreover, it raises questions about how particular contingencies affect whether public managers perceive and work with a line or a zone.

The quality of the policy making, the consisitency between policy intent and the impact of policies when implemented, and the effectiveness, equality, and efficiency of the administrative process can can all be affected by the nature of the interation and relative influence politicians and administration. politics and administration should be thought of as different elements of the same process of formulating and implementing public policy. it is therefore, against this background that this paper investigates the relatiosnhip between politicians and public administratrators in policy making. this is because policy formulators shoould work together with policy implementers because non-cooperation of the two will only lead to the success of policy in writing but failure in practice. this paper is conceptual in nature and that it derives its contribution and argument from the existing lirature. This paper, inter alia, recommends that it is vital for politicians and administrators to complement each other than to have them separated

Personnel management is vitally important to the maintenance and preservation of the administrative state and its democratic institutions. This reaction critically examines the personnel recommendations made by Floyd W. Reeves and Paul T. David in their study Personnel Administration in the Federal Service. It questions the degree to which there is a coherent set of political and constitutional expectations marking the progress of personnel policy that might enable us to forecast the future, both theoretically and practically. The authors highlight how and why the field should pay greater attention to the political ends that our personnel theories serve.