Differences of OpinionAuthor(s): John DempseySource: Public Administration Review, Vol. 35, No. 3 (May - Jun., 1975), p. 314Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Society for Public AdministrationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/974776 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 21:31

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Wiley and American Society for Public Administration are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve andextend access to Public Administration Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.228 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 21:31:49 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW

well School; to engage in major research projects, notably in the regulation of public utilities; to author or co-author several books as well as articles; and to participate in numerous civic and professional undertakings. Because of his unflag- ging zeal to link educators and practitioners in cooperative effort to advance the theory and practice of public administration, he still took time from all of these other tasks to mobilize support for ASPA, both before and after its creation. A student of that time reports that Dean Mosher returned to Syracuse from the Washington meeting at which ASPA was established, aglow with excitement. It was obviously one of the high points in his life.

Donald C. Stone

well School; to engage in major research projects, notably in the regulation of public utilities; to author or co-author several books as well as articles; and to participate in numerous civic and professional undertakings. Because of his unflag- ging zeal to link educators and practitioners in cooperative effort to advance the theory and practice of public administration, he still took time from all of these other tasks to mobilize support for ASPA, both before and after its creation. A student of that time reports that Dean Mosher returned to Syracuse from the Washington meeting at which ASPA was established, aglow with excitement. It was obviously one of the high points in his life.

Donald C. Stone

Differences of Opinion

To the Editor:

At the risk of beating the proverbial dead horse, I would like to address an implication of Bob Wynia's "Federal Bureaucrats Attitudes Towards Democratic Ideology" that has as yet gone un- examined in the now voluminous correspondence which has followed that article's appearance.

To date, much of the discussion surrounding Wynia's research has questioned whether the at- titudes he discovered among bureaucrats are repre- sentative or unrepresentative of comparative base- line data for the population at large. Implicit has been the notion that Wynia's findings are rather unstartling if the attitudes he observed among bureaucrats are no different from those of the general public. In one sense, this may be true. In another sense, however, Wynia's findings are in- teresting whether or not they report a difference between bureaucrats and the public on the ques- tions he examines.

Wynia reports, for example, that 27 per cent of his bureaucrats agreed that "To bring about great changes for the benefit of mankind often requires cruelty and even ruthlessness." Presumably, 73 per cent of the bureaucrats polled did not agree with this statement. In a report on similar research conducted among Western European bureaucrats, Robert Putnam recently noted that 49 per cent of the West German administrators he polled agreed that, "In contemporary social and economic af- fairs it is essential that technical considerations be given more weight than political factors."1 Fifty-

Differences of Opinion

To the Editor:

At the risk of beating the proverbial dead horse, I would like to address an implication of Bob Wynia's "Federal Bureaucrats Attitudes Towards Democratic Ideology" that has as yet gone un- examined in the now voluminous correspondence which has followed that article's appearance.

To date, much of the discussion surrounding Wynia's research has questioned whether the at- titudes he discovered among bureaucrats are repre- sentative or unrepresentative of comparative base- line data for the population at large. Implicit has been the notion that Wynia's findings are rather unstartling if the attitudes he observed among bureaucrats are no different from those of the general public. In one sense, this may be true. In another sense, however, Wynia's findings are in- teresting whether or not they report a difference between bureaucrats and the public on the ques- tions he examines.

Wynia reports, for example, that 27 per cent of his bureaucrats agreed that "To bring about great changes for the benefit of mankind often requires cruelty and even ruthlessness." Presumably, 73 per cent of the bureaucrats polled did not agree with this statement. In a report on similar research conducted among Western European bureaucrats, Robert Putnam recently noted that 49 per cent of the West German administrators he polled agreed that, "In contemporary social and economic af- fairs it is essential that technical considerations be given more weight than political factors."1 Fifty-

one percent of the West Germans disagreed with this statement. The extent to which the bureau- cratic attitudes uncovered by Wynia's and Put- nam's research efforts are representative of their respective publics is, of course, an important question. Just as important, however, is the fact that-regardless of their representativeness or un- representativeness-significant differences appear to exist among bureaucrats on questions of enor- mous (for public administration) importance. In short, bureaucrats are split (73-27 per cent and 51-49 per cent in the two cases discussed) on some very basic ideological questions.

The import of this phenomenon for the study of public administration (and for the citizen "subjects" of bureaucratic action) is clear: since important administrative decisions are often made by individual bureaucrats, who would you want deciding your case-the bureaucrat who condones "ruthlessness," or the one who does not? Wynia's research points to important person-to-person dif- ferences among bureaucrats on basic ideological questions. These differences, over time, will in- evitably result in different patterns of administra- tive behavior and decision making. If the concept of "administrative neutrality" has any credence left among students of public administration, Wynia's research should finally dispel it. His findings demonstrate the necessity to include "personal ideology" as a legitimate "variable" in any meaningful attempt to describe the realities of bureaucratic behavior.

By implication, his research indicates the need for continued efforts to describe the motivational forces (of which personal ideology is only one) which influence the behavior of individual bureau- crats. His article reveals that descriptions of bureaucratic behavior which focus on "bureau- cracies" as units of analysis are insufficient when such fundamental differences exist-differences which, over time, cause different behavior-among the individual members of those bureaucracies.

John Dempsey Department of Political Science

The College of Charleston

Note

1. Robert D. Putnam, "The Political Attitudes of Senior Civil Servants in Western Europe: A Preliminary Report," British Journal of Political Science, Volume 3, Part 3 (July 1973), pp. 257-290.

one percent of the West Germans disagreed with this statement. The extent to which the bureau- cratic attitudes uncovered by Wynia's and Put- nam's research efforts are representative of their respective publics is, of course, an important question. Just as important, however, is the fact that-regardless of their representativeness or un- representativeness-significant differences appear to exist among bureaucrats on questions of enor- mous (for public administration) importance. In short, bureaucrats are split (73-27 per cent and 51-49 per cent in the two cases discussed) on some very basic ideological questions.

The import of this phenomenon for the study of public administration (and for the citizen "subjects" of bureaucratic action) is clear: since important administrative decisions are often made by individual bureaucrats, who would you want deciding your case-the bureaucrat who condones "ruthlessness," or the one who does not? Wynia's research points to important person-to-person dif- ferences among bureaucrats on basic ideological questions. These differences, over time, will in- evitably result in different patterns of administra- tive behavior and decision making. If the concept of "administrative neutrality" has any credence left among students of public administration, Wynia's research should finally dispel it. His findings demonstrate the necessity to include "personal ideology" as a legitimate "variable" in any meaningful attempt to describe the realities of bureaucratic behavior.

By implication, his research indicates the need for continued efforts to describe the motivational forces (of which personal ideology is only one) which influence the behavior of individual bureau- crats. His article reveals that descriptions of bureaucratic behavior which focus on "bureau- cracies" as units of analysis are insufficient when such fundamental differences exist-differences which, over time, cause different behavior-among the individual members of those bureaucracies.

John Dempsey Department of Political Science

The College of Charleston

Note

1. Robert D. Putnam, "The Political Attitudes of Senior Civil Servants in Western Europe: A Preliminary Report," British Journal of Political Science, Volume 3, Part 3 (July 1973), pp. 257-290.

MAY/JUNE 1975 MAY/JUNE 1975

314 314

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.228 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 21:31:49 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions