politics and administration three schools, three approaches, and three suggestions

8/9/2019 Politics and Administration Three Schools, Three Approaches, And Three Suggestions

1/31503

Administrative Theory & Praxis / December 2009, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 503–532.

© 2009 Public Administration Theory Network.

1084-1806 / 2009 $9.50 + 0.00.

DOI 10.2753/ATP1084-1806310403

Politics and Administration

Three Schools, Three Approaches,and Three Suggestions

Tansu Demir

University of Texas at San Antonio

ABSTRACT

The question of how public administration fits into the gover-

nance process of a democratic society has been of great concern

to scholars and practitioners since the emergence of public

administration as an academic field of study in the late 1880s.

The politics–administration relationship is considered of pivotal

importance, as the issue bears important implications for both the

disciplinary identity (and autonomy) and the institutional develop-

ment of public administration. Despite a voluminous literature on

the subject, the question remains unanswered. Scholarly inquiry

to this date identifies two major positions, one separation and the

other its opposite, political. Unlike prior conceptualizations, this

article distills the literature into three major schools of thought as

separation, political, and interaction. The article then examines

the state of the research that has followed three strands as his-

torical, conceptual, and empirical. The author makes an overall

evaluation of the past research and lays out a different approach

in studying this important question.

The question of how public administration fits into the governance process

of a democratic society has been a persistent issue since the emergence ofpublic administration as a field of study in the late 1880s. In his famous article,

Wilson (1887) outlined the basic tenets of what later happened to be called

the politics–administration dichotomy, a term coined to emphasize a host of

features that distinguish public administration from politics. Wilson stated

that public administration lies outside the proper sphere of politics (1887,

p. 210). Government, in dichotomy terms, has been considered to have two


2/31

504 ADMINISTRATIVE THEORY & PRAXIS v VOL. 31, NO. 4

identifiable domains in the form of politics and administration, each of which

is exclusively assigned to elected officials and public administrators.

With contributions from numerous scholars in the years that followedWilson’s 1887 article, the politics–administration dichotomy has gradu-

ally evolved into a normative model for public administrators and has had

tremendous influence on the intellectual identity of public administration.

As a result of substantive critiques that followed World War II, however, the

politics–administration dichotomy lost some of its theoretical and normative

appeal and, consequently, gave rise to the development of alternative conceptu-

alizations of the politics–administration relationship. The fading legacy of the

dichotomy, however, has not ended the controversy over the question of how

public administration fits into the governance process in a democratic regime.

This long-standing debate on the fundamentals of public administration isimportant to both academics and practitioners because it bears implications

on the intellectual identity of the discipline as well as future development of

public administration as a profession (Miller, 2000; Rutgers, 1997; Whicker,

Olshfski, & Strickland, 1993).

During the past decades, public administration scholars proposed numerous

conceptualizations in their efforts to understand the place of public administra-

tion in the governance process. In this paper, I examine these scholarly efforts

under three schools of thought: separation, political, and interaction schools.

Two of them, the separation and the political schools, are posed to stand as polar

extremes, representing fundamental differences among scholars with respect to

public administration’s place in the governance process. In the middle of the two

schools lies what I call the interaction school, which carries some features of

both extremes yet offers a unique understanding of how public administration

does and should relate to the governance process. Each school of thought is

supported by a broad array of research that has employed historical, conceptual,

and empirical approaches. This article describes these three major schools of

thought, analyzes past research that produced an arsenal of findings and insights

on the question, and outlines three suggestions for future research. In the end,

this article organizes a large literature and provides a different approach in

utilizing the differences in opinions of public administration scholars.

WHERE DOES PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

STAND IN THE GOVERNANCE PROCESS?

The Three Schools of Thought

It is rare in public administration scholarship that one author identifies himself

or herself explicitly with a school of thought or a paradigm. In this article,

however, consistent with my objective of identifying major schools of thought,

I not only include the writings of those scholars who have openly promoted a


3/31

DEMIR 505

particular thought, but I also analyze the writings of various scholars whose de-

scriptions of the politics–administration relationship might assist significantly

in identifying a particular train of thought on the question. It should be notedthat each school of thought examined in this paper covers a wide spectrum of

scholars who may, on certain points, differ from each other even if they agree

on general principles or share common assumptions and values.

The Separation School: A Dichotomy of Politics and Administration

I use the term “separation” to represent this school of thought to suggest intel-

lectual thinking that promotes an agenda for separating politics from adminis-

tration to the extent possible for a variety of normative and practical reasons.1

The separation school tends to view the governmental realm as divided intotwo zones—politics and administration. A functional approach is used to

conceptualize the relationship between the two. The function of politics is to

provide guidance, or what Wilson said, “setting the task for administration”

(1887, p. 210). The function of public administration, on the other hand, is

to provide neutral competence to the governance process. Elected officials

provide political guidance as they rely primarily on policy leadership and

legislative oversight. Policy leadership links elected officials to citizens, and

legislative oversight links them to public administrators. On the other side of

the policy process stands public administration, whose primary responsibility

has been defined as enabling formulated policies into concrete implementation

in conformity with legislative intention (Demir & Nyhan, 2008).

The idea that public administration should be separated from the political

process is traced back to the writings of the progenitors of public adminis-

tration. For example, Wilson, in his often-cited article, strongly implied a

politics–administration dichotomy by stating: “Administration lies outside the

proper sphere of politics. Administrative questions are not political questions.

Although politics sets the task for administration, it should not be suffered to

manipulate its offices” (1887, p. 210).

The remarks above have often been interpreted to suggest a sharp distinc-

tion between politics and administration.2 Wilson considered politics and

administration polar extremes and mutually exclusive functional realms,separated by values, structures, and objectives yet connected to each other

under a hierarchical arrangement. That one function comes before the other

and overpowers it is explicit in the third statement of the above quotation. Wil-

son’s rudimentary distinctions were supported by other early writers of public

administration. Frank Goodnow, for example, in Politics and Administration

(1900), promoted a similar understanding by emphasizing the distinctions

between two primary functions as legislation and administration.

According to Leonard White (1937), who is recognized as the author of

the first public administration textbook, “administration is a term widely and


4/31


often loosely used, although it is capable of reasonably precise definition” (p.

85). Referring to the British and French descriptions of administration, White

pointed out that the description of administrative work has equal force whenapplied to administrative work in the United States:

It is distinguished on the one hand from the making of broad decisions

of policy by a legislative body, and on the other hand from the relatively

routine tasks of day-by-day execution of established policy, although

the line of demarcation cannot be drawn with mathematical precision.

(1937, p. 86)

Finer further emphasized the hierarchical nature of the relationship between

elected officials and public administrators:

Administration begins where the legislature says it shall begin. It beginswhere the administrator begins, and the legislature decides that. Admin-

istration may include the making of rules and policy, which looks like

legislation or politics. But its essence is that the administrator, elected or

appointed (and most usually in modern states the latter), cannot himself

determine the range or object of that policy. He has authority, but it is a

conditioned, derived authority. (1940, p. 343, emphasis in original)

The dichotomy has often been depicted by contemporary scholars to sug-

gest “isolating the two sides, as if each function works best as an independent

variable, capable of being improved in isolation without endangering or

interfering with the other side” (Martin, 1988, p. 632). With contributions

from numerous scholars, the dichotomous distinction evolved into a theory of

public administration and has become a normative guide for public adminis-

tration professionals. It had tremendous influence on the intellectual identity

of public administration and inspired many public administration scholars

in their works that further emphasized the theoretical utility and normative

desirability of the dichotomy. The dichotomy offered significant assistance

to public administration professionals in defining their roles and protecting

their professional autonomy from partisan politics. The concept of dichotomy

had been particularly influential, at least in the founding period of public

administration, on the profession of city management. As one city managerput it boldly, “I regard myself as the hired hand of the city council. In the last

analysis, I don’t work for the public; I don’t work for the individual citizen of

the city; I work for the council” (Carrel, 1962, p. 203). The idea of separation

and the dichotomy model that came from it helped public administration gain

a new identity that would help maintain a fine balance between professional

autonomy and democratic accountability.

The separation school is characterized by efforts to distinguish public

administration from politics. It tends to treat public administration as a world

of its own with values, rules, and methods divorced from those of politics.


5/31

DEMIR 507

Primary values that guide public administration from politics are somewhat

different and include neutrality, hierarchy, and expertise, which altogether

form a defining feature of public administration: neutral competence. Theoverarching goal of public administrators is to provide neutral and compe-

tent service to elected officials. In Kaufman’s words, neutral competence is

“the ability to do the work of government expertly and to do it according to

explicit, objective standards rather than to personal or party or other obliga-

tions and loyalties” (1956, p. 1060). Three constitutive components of neutral

competence—neutrality, expertise, and hierarchy—help public administra-

tors maintain distance from politics while ensuring their contributions to the

policy-making process.

In the separation school, administrative neutrality has been broadly inter-

preted. The term has been used to suggest both political and policy neutrality.More specifically, neutrality means that public employees and activities are

nonpartisan, apolitical, and void of any particular policy agenda; profes-

sional administrators administer the affairs of the government with integrity

and efficiency and loyalty to the elected leadership without participating in

or allowing their work to be affected by contending programs or partisans;

and administrators maintain a neutral stand on policy issues that divide the

community (Loveridge, 1971; White, 1927, in Lockard, 1962, p. 226; Wolf,

1999, pp. 146–147). The basis of decision making in a neutral administration

is considered factual. This is why bureaucratic expertise has been given sig-

nificant weight in the separation school. In its best application, expert public

administration ensures competent and nonpartisan contribution to the policy

process. For example, one of the early contributors to the separation school

states that expertise is as important as neutrality:

For the proper exercise of the functions of the director, it is essential

that he be disinterested; that is, be free from any conflicting interest.

But it is also essential that he have knowledge. Facts, facts, facts are

the only basis on which he can properly exercise his judgment. (Cooke,

1915, p. 490)

The separation school envisions or assumes a consensus model. The pro-

ponents of the separation school rested their arguments on the premise thatpublic administrators are in possession of special knowledge and skills, and

elected officials are eager to incorporate administrative knowledge and skills

into the policy-making process. The consensus model assumes that a wise

and public-regarding elected body with expert advice reaches decisions in the

best interest of the public (e.g., Loveridge, 1971).

The proponents of the separation school express support for a clear struc-

tural division of authority between elected and administrative officials to

eliminate or minimize undue political influences on public administration as

well as potential conflicts. By subordinating public administrators to elected


6/31


leadership, the separation school aims to guard administrative space from

partisan political influences. The administrative organization is kept under

the managerial authority of an appointed administrator who is accountableto elected leadership. In council-manager local governments, for example,

the administrative organization of the city is put under the supervision and

direction of an appointed official called the city manager. The communication

regarding policy follows a hierarchical path as policies move from formulation

to implementation phase. It is suggested that neither individual members nor

the whole council bypass the manager in giving directions to the staff (e.g.,

Montjoy & Watson, 1995). Hierarchical organization is emphasized because

of the fear that interactions between politicians and administrators can easily

lead to bargaining. According to the dichotomy, however, administrative deci-

sions should be made by rational and nonpartisan criteria, not by bargaining(e.g., Abney & Lauth, 1982). The hierarchical structure and operation of the

administrative organization help minimize undue political influences over

the personnel by elected officials or interest group representatives. This is

how the separation school distances and separates public administration

from politics.

Centralization is given prime importance in the separation school. In 1915,

the U.S. National Tax Association Committee addressed what it perceived as

a major problem:

A fundamental defect is found in the diffusion of power and respon-

sibility. The people elect a legislature to carry out their will and thenordinarily split it into two parts in order that the one may check the

other. Executive officers are then also elected, taking their mandate

from the people to check and to be checked by legislative houses.

Above all the courts and a constitution often operate to further check

the others. This is government for impotence, not for results—if the

people want little done, in an expensive way, we have developed a

marvelously effective way of satisfying the people’s desires. (quoted

in George, 1916, p. 80)

Centralization provides an opportunity to concentrate power. Power pro-

vides the central actor with the capacity to coordinate. Gulick and Urwick

stated, “a structure of authority requires not only many men at work in many

places but a single directing executive authority” (1937, p. 7). Gulick placed

particular emphasis on organization of government. In his understanding, “an

integrated organization will produce efficient and effective administration,

automatic coordination through clearly specified channels of communica-

tion, and clear assignments of responsibility that make democratic control

more effective” (quoted in Fry, 1989, p. 92). From Woodrow Wilson to more

contemporary scholars of public administration, centralization has been

considered vital for efficiency and responsibility. Vincent Ostrom, a powerful


7/31

DEMIR 509

critic of orthodox public administration, argued that basic propositions that

Wilson made included:

1. There will always be a single dominant center of power in any system

of government; and the government of a society will be controlled by

that single center of power.

2. The more power is divided, the more irresponsible it becomes; or,

alternatively, the more power is unified, and directed from a single center

the more responsible it will become. (1973, p. 24)

Completing the Wilsonian logic, Finer stated that “indeed it is tempting

to argue that the first requisite is responsibility, and if it is properly instituted

efficiency will follow” (1940, p. 335). In the equation of the politics–admin-istration dichotomy, efficiency depends upon responsibility, and responsi-

bility will be ensured with centralization of authority. Due to the emphasis

placed on centralization and integration of authority, the argument goes on

that it becomes easier for citizens to determine who is responsible and hold

governing officials accountable. As Waldo put it so succinctly, “integration

takes advantage of the principle of economy and citizen attention. Democracy

in a complicated, modern setting requires that the citizen’s task of judging

among persons and policies be reduced to manageable dimensions” (1984, p.

138). The separation school aspires to achieve this manageability by dividing

authority between elected and appointed officials, centralizing political andadministrative authority in separate hands, and then structuring cooperation

between the two in a superior–subordinate manner.

The case for the centralization of authority uses a well-known practical

argument: A centralized decision-making structure proves efficient in carry-

ing out conflicts and maintaining consistency in making and implementing

policies. Hyneman, among others, provided a syllogistic argument to justify

centralization of the decision-making authority:

If the policies that originate within the administrative organization are

formulated and put into effect by its several divisions, we are bound to

end up with conflicting policies. Conflict will arise, in part because the

officials in one division cannot know and consider some of the things

that are taken into account in another division, and in part because the

officials in different divisions would reach different conclusions if they

did consider the same matters. Therefore we need to lift these policies

up to the highest level of the organization for decision or final approval,

for at that point are the only individuals within the organization whose

range of interest and sweep of authority are great enough to make al-

lowance for everything that the officials in the separate divisions bring

up for consideration. (1978, p. 446)


8/31


Svara, for example, emphasized the strength of a structural division (per-

haps best exemplified in council-manager form in local governments), “in

council-manager cities, friction is reduced when responsibilities are dividedin a way that limits interference by one set of officials in the activities of

others” (1987, p. 213). The hierarchical nature of the administrative organi-

zation helps minimize undue political influences over public administrators,

and the policy-making prerogative of elected officials proves to be highly

effective in resolving conflicts on disputable policy issues (e.g., Abney &

Lauth, 1982; Koehler, 1973; Miller, 2000; Svara, 1990). Political influences

on public administrators are always approached, by the separation school

proponents, with skepticism, considering their potential to slip into political

corruption. The basic assumption that inspires the proponents of this school is

that “politics and administration work best as independent variables, capableof being improved in isolation without endangering or interfering with the

other side” (Martin, 1988, p. 632). The separation school draws attention

toward the potential negative consequences of free interaction between

politics and administration (e.g., Klay, 1983). Svara, for example, noted that

“there are cases of cities controlled by an appointed manager who cannot

be challenged because of longevity or community support” (1990, p. 37).

In Svara’s words, “the manager has become the master to whom the board

defers out of respect and dependency” (p. 37). The separation school also

advances a pragmatic argument as a rationale to remove public administra-

tors from political engagements. The argument states that rational structure

of bureaucracy makes public administrators less effective in fulfilling the

political function, which involves conflict resolution in matters of public

importance (Sparrow, 1984, p. 3). Both normative arguments (eliminating

political corruption and administrative tyranny) and pragmatic arguments

(fulfilling the political function effectively) are enough to persuade the

supporters of the separation thought to promote a functional and structural

division between politics and administration.

In a nutshell, the separation school defines clear roles and responsibili-

ties for elected officials and public administrators. Public administrators are

linked to elected officials in a subordinate position. That is, public adminis-

trators look up to elected officials for policy direction, while making expertcontributions by engaging extensively in “how to do” questions. In the ideal

world of the political–administrative relationship, as conceived and pro-

moted by the separation school, elected officials and public administrators

perform their roles as normatively assigned, and the resultant outcome is a

political–administrative system where public administrators are competent

and professionally autonomous yet remain accountable and responsive to

their elected officials. So, competent, professionally autonomous, account-

able, and responsive public administration constitutes the vision of the

separation school.


9/31

DEMIR 511

Two Major Schools Against Separation

The idea of separation has been subjected to intense critiques on both nor-mative and empirical grounds. Public administration scholars challenged the

empirical accuracy of the dichotomy by emphasizing extensive administrative

involvement in all phases of the policy-making process. On normative ac-

count, a host of scholars advanced unfavorable criticism in the belief that the

separation thought, as a normative guide, strips public administrators of their

moral awareness and creates a moral vacuum in administrative life, which is,

in large part, attributable to near obsession with neutrality and the criterion

of efficiency. The political school represents a broad array of thoughts mainly

based on these two major arguments against the separation school, which are

lack of empirical accuracy and normative void.

The Political School: The Concept of Political Public Administration

I use the label “political school” to represent this train of thought in that its

major arguments emphasize and support an extensive involvement for public

administrators in all phases of the policy process. This school positions itself

against the separation school and is characterized by outright rejection of the

sharp distinction drawn between politics and administration.

The political school offers a particular mode of thinking for public admin-

istration that significantly deviates from that of the separation school. For the

political school, public administration is an inseparable part of the governance

process (e.g., Bosworth, 1958; Long, 1954; Miller, 1993; Pfiffner, 1985),

and it is neither possible nor desirable to achieve even a partial separation of

politics from administration. Three important arguments have been offered to

support the political school. First, in a government structure where power is

widely diffused, an all-powerful center of authority is nonexistent; because of

the deficiencies in the political system (e.g., weak political parties), no single

player is powerful enough to formulate an articulate political mandate, and

the distinction between politics and administration carries little relevance to

political life. Norton Long, in his classic article on power and administration,

made this point very clear:

It is clear that the American system of politics does not generate enough

power at any focal point of leadership to provide the conditions for an

even partially successful divorce of politics from administration. Subor-

dinates cannot depend on the formal chain of command to deliver enough

political power to permit them to do their jobs. Accordingly, they must

supplement the resources available through the hierarchy with those they

can muster on their own, or accept the consequences in frustration—a

course itself not without danger. Administrative rationality demands that


10/31


objectives be determined and sights set in conformity with a realistic

appraisal of power position and potential. (1949, p. 258)

Various public administration scholars directed attention to the political

context of public administration and a plural society that surrounds it as

well as conflicting demands and pressures exerted at all levels and by many

units of government. This political realism led the political school to the

conclusion that public administration is inherently political at both national

and local levels, and this is sufficient reason for public administrators to be

politically aware and active (and proactive) if they want to get things done

(e.g., Abney & Lauth, 1985; Pfiffner, 1985). For scholars who adhered to this

school of thought, political public administration is a very good approach in

the sense that administrative politics complements the electoral process that

has important deficiencies.The second argument rests upon the concept of administrative discretion

(Davis, 1969; Fox & Cochran, 1990). Vague and ambiguous legislations,

lack of technical knowledge and resources available to elected officials, and

significant difficulties in monitoring and controlling bureaucratic behavior

all end up delegating much policy-making authority to public administrators

who, in turn, discharge it at their discretion and according to their own as-

sessment of where public interest lies. Michael Lipsky (1980), in his classic

book Street-Level Bureaucracy, even argued that street-level bureaucrats make

policy when they implement it.

The third argument of the political school brings ethics and morality issuesinto the conversation on the role of public administration (Adams & Balfour,

1998; Cooper, 1985; Denhardt, 1989; Levitan, 1940; Rohr, 1986). Paying

attention to the detrimental consequences of placing an exclusive emphasis

on efficiency and political neutrality, the argument goes on to conclude that

public administrators should not confine their decisions and actions to mere

implementation of policies but also should be willing to critically reflect on

the moral implications of policies prior to figuring out the most efficient and

expedient means of accomplishing them. In the belief that public administra-

tion has both constitutive and instrumental characteristics, “political public

administration” does and should promote policy agendas that serve publiclydesirable goals (Cook, 1996), be it justice for the oppressed or more rights

for the underrepresented. Emerging in the late 1960s, for example, the New

Public Administration movement adhered to a social equity agenda. One

of the leading proponents of this movement, George Frederickson (1971),

rejected outright the principle that public administration should be subject to

the direction of political leadership (e.g., Congress, the president). He even

asserted that members of Congress and the Executive Branch of government

represent the privileged few, while public administrators and courts should

be the spokespeople for the underrepresented. Similarly, other scholars that

have supported the idea of the political public administration encouraged a


11/31

DEMIR 513

broad policy-making role for public administrators, each with a good reason

in mind. For Rohr (1986), public administrators should work to maintain

the balance between the three branches of government, implying that publicadministrators have freedom to choose which masters to serve. They make

their choices with the primary goal of safeguarding the fundamental values

of the regime such as liberty and equality (e.g., Rohr, 1986).

In response to the criticism that political public administration would raise

the question of legitimacy, which has long been a lingering issue in public

administration discourse, the political school states that what determines the

legitimacy of public administration is the extent to which policy goals that it

pursues are socially and politically desirable. Although there might be a certain

level of disagreement among scholars on what sort of goals to promote at a

certain point of time, establishing and maintaining a democratic society servesa common ground that would unite a good number of scholars supporting the

idea of political public administration. In order to accomplish a democratic

society, some political school scholars identify barriers in the system and then

propose a set of strategies to overcome these barriers (e.g., Forester, 1989).

Technical skills remain important in the sense that POSDCORB helps public

administrators make the hopes and ideals reachable; yet public administra-

tors are also political in the sense that they proactively engage in various

activities that lead communities, build coalitions, convince, cajole, and inspire

political players whose support is important for successful policy adoption,

resolve conflicts after or before they arise, and put forth efforts to create a

deliberative policy-making process where the interested and knowledgeable

people cooperate (without the distortion of the powerful interests) to identify,

understand, and solve problems that affect the political community. Having

acknowledged and even promoted a political role for public administrators,

the political school becomes more concerned with the art of political decision

making. The action question is how to best prepare public administrators for

political tasks so that they can get things done. Numerous political skills are

proposed as important, and practicing public administrators are recommended

to equip themselves with these skills (e.g., Moore, 1995).

In the ideal world of the political public administration, as represented

by the political school, public administrators work with other members ofthe political community to search for effective and ethical solutions to the

policy problems in pursuit of the ultimate goal of creating and maintaining

a democratic society.

The Interaction School: Advancing the Notion of Partnership

The political school has promoted an image of public administration as a cen-

tral player in the governance process, yet it invited a host of critical questions.

The question of the type and extent of administrative involvement in politics is


12/31


one of them. The question of whether political involvement would adversely

affect or undermine administrative competence and democratic accountability

is another one that lingers. Finally, whether public administrators have therequisite skills in undertaking political duties is an important question as well.

In response to these questions, some scholars developed a normative model

that would attempt to find a middle ground between the separation and politi-

cal schools. In some ways, the interaction school represents various efforts to

find a common ground between the political and separation schools.

The interaction school, as named here, represents a set of ideas that

emphasize collaboration between elected and administrative officials while

maintaining each one’s traditional roles and unique perspectives, yet allowing

some overlaps. This school is inspired by reinterpretations of classical works

in public administration. What makes the interaction school different from thepolitical school is being explicit on the question of the extent of administra-

tive involvement in politics. The interaction school acknowledges “the logical

and psychological distinctions” between politics and administration (Waldo,

1980, p. 69) but also addresses the problem of bringing the two together in a

symbiotic association yet keeping each in its proper place (Van Riper, 1983,

p. 489). In the words of this school’s earliest representative:

As we all should know by now, politics and administrations are inex-

tricably intermixed. Both are central to effective action. One problem

is to bring them together in a symbiotic association yet keep each in

its proper place. The other is to understand that the “proper place” ofeach will vary through time. There is no permanent solution, no fixed

paradigm, to this or any other ends-means continuum. (Van Riper,

1983, p. 489)

And finally, different from the political school, the interaction school is

more helpful in explaining the role of public administration in the gover-

nance process where division of labor and authority are divided along clear

functional lines. It is important to note that most of the interaction school

ideas have been advanced in relation to American local government (e.g.,

council-manager form).

The interaction school proponents acknowledge the differences betweenpolitics and administration by emphasizing logical and psychological differ-

ences, or directing attention to dissimilarities in the perspectives, values, and

formal positions of elected and administrative officials (Nalbandian, 1994;

Svara, 2001; Waldo, 1980). Yet, what makes the interaction school somewhat

different from the separation school is its emphasis on ongoing cooperation

between elected and administrative officials in the process of policy-making.

Intense interaction emerges as an important theme in the writings of interaction

school proponents. This is in contrast to the separation school’s assumption

that politics and administration are capable of being improved in isolation.


13/31

DEMIR 515

The interaction school distinguishes itself from the political school by

developing some normative principles that explicitly prohibit certain types of

behaviors for elected officials and public administrators. For example, publicadministrators are prohibited from getting involved in partisan politics as

well as those activities that may undermine the policy-making prerogatives

of elected officials. Svara (1990), for example, notes cases of cities controlled

by appointed managers who cannot be challenged because of longevity in of-

fice or community support. Whatever the reason, in both cases, the manager

becomes a master vis-à-vis elected officials, a result that is not acceptable to

the proponents of the interaction school. The interaction school makes clear

that elected bodies of government are the senior partners in the relationship,

thus requiring public administrators to remain accountable and responsive

to elected officials (e.g., Svara, 1999a; Svara, 2001). Also, elected officialsare not allowed to interfere with the daily functioning of public administra-

tion. Those activities that undermine administrative integrity and circumvent

consistent enforcement of policies are particularly discouraged. In addition

to these limited numbers of activities, many policy and administration issues

are open to involvement from both sides. Overlapping roles, reciprocal influ-

ence, and mutual deference between elected officials and public administrators

characterize their partnership in the governance process (e.g., Svara, 2001,

pp. 179–180).

As an alternative to the dichotomy model of the separation school, the

interaction school brings the concept of continuum (e.g., Browne, 1985;

Demir, 2009; Henry & Harms, 1987; Svara, 1999b; Thomas, 1990). The

supporters of this school offer a politics–management continuum to suggest

a dichotomy (between what they call politics and management) as well as

duality (between what they call policy and administration). Although still in

its development phase in terms of conceptual maturity and empirical rigor,

the idea of continuum provides the interaction school not just with an em-

pirical instrument by which descriptive explanations on the politics–policy–

administration relationship can be offered but also gives an opportunity to

advance normative propositions in addressing various deficiencies in the

relationship between elected officials and public administrators. For example,

if they see that appointed officials progressed too much toward policy andpolitics, they offer remedies to improve the policy role of elected officials. In

a local government context, for example, they might propose a strong mayor

as a policy leader, or simply urge city managers to assist elected officials in

proactive ways that would make their elected partners more involved and

effective in policy-making.

Another important theme in the writings of the interaction school is the

proposition for expanding the value set of public administration. Efficiency,

though an important value, must be supplemented with more community-

oriented values. This point makes the interaction school differ from the sepa-


14/31


ration school. Summarizing comments from two city managers, Nalbandian

stated:

They [two city administrators] reflect the notion that elected officials and

administrative staff are partners in the governance process even though

the governing body is the senior partner; that managers must ground

their authority in community values as well as their legal relationship to

the council; and that efficiency alone no longer will suffice as a guide

to effective administrative work. (1994, p. 535)

The interaction school allows a broader policy role for public administrators

for mostly pragmatic reasons. Our attention, by this school, is drawn to the

increasing complexity and dynamism in the political, social, and economic

environments of policy-making, a fact that makes intense interaction andcooperation between elected and administrative officials an essential re-

quirement for success (Nalbandian, 1999). Summarizing comments from an

elected official, Nalbandian said, “hierarchy is of little use in handling those

problems that require independence, creativity and innovation, connectedness,

communication, and cooperation” (1999, p. 194). The interaction school is

less reliant on formal hierarchical structures of government that tradition-

ally defined the relationship between elected and administrative officials in

superior–subordinate terms.

In the ideal political–administrative world, as suggested by the interac-

tion school, public administrators and elected officials maintain a productive

partnership that relies on mutual respect, support, and reciprocal influence,

yet public administrators remain accountable and responsive to their elected

officials. Cognizant of the risk that intense interaction between elected and

administrative officials may fuel negative dynamics into the relationship

and eventually lead to political corruption or administrative tyranny, the

interaction school finds reassurance in the interaction process itself—in the

interplay of different roles. This interplay of different roles is expected to

create a restraining effect of reciprocating values (Svara, 2001, p. 179). As

such, in the end, one should be hopeful that both administrative competence

and political responsiveness will contribute to the governance process to their

fullest capacity.

THE STATE OF THE RESEARCH: THREE APPROACHES

To review the state of the research on the question of how public administra-

tion fits into the governance process, or how public administration is related

to politics, research efforts are outlined in this section under three strands as

historical, conceptual, and empirical. The literature is rather voluminous on

the subject; therefore, only a number of studies representing major works in

the literature are presented.


15/31

DEMIR 517

Historical Approach: The Distant Past as a Tool for Understanding

Where Public Administration Does or Should Stand

History has been so generous to public administration scholars in offering

help to uncover the meaning of important concepts. Every concept is born

out of a political and social context; therefore, it makes great sense to closely

examine the historical origins of concepts and attempt to discover incomplete

understandings, misinterpretations, or even deliberate distortions. Public ad-

ministration scholars study prominent figures or important political and social

events as potential sources of insight on the role of public administration in

the governance process.

Some public administration scholars took the founders of the field and

put their works, and even deeds, under a magnifying glass. Price (1941),for example, examined Robert Child and his efforts to promote the council-

manager plan that is the structural equivalent of the politics–administration

conceptual distinction. Martin (1988) argued that Wilson’s definition of the

dichotomy was a result of mistranslation, which Wilson noticed and corrected

later, while Svara (1998) and Lynn (2001) focused on the founders’ writings

and argued that they meant something totally different from what many public

administration scholars presently take for granted regarding the meaning of the

politics–administration dichotomy. Roberts (1994) explained the development

of the dichotomy with particular emphasis on Rockefeller philanthropies and

the use of the dichotomy as a “rhetorical strategy” intended to help institu-

tional development of public administration in its formative years. Hoffman

(2002) looked at the curriculum of public administration between 1884 and

1896 at Johns Hopkins University and argued that the founders’ approach

did not concentrate on government structure and management skills, but on

politics, economics, history, law, and ethics. Schachter (1989) discredited the

dichotomous distinction between politics and administration by examining

Frederick Taylor in particular and discovered misunderstandings and distor-

tions through a careful reading of the scientific management movement. Com-

mon in all these efforts is the goal to correct misunderstandings, which are

believed to have resulted from a misinterpretation of original sources. Some

scholars shifted focus from prominent figures to social and political events andprogress, thereby shedding light on the true meanings of important concepts

taken for granted in the public administration community. Representatives

include Stillman (1991) (examining the nature of administrative development

in the United States, which makes the dichotomy untenable), and Karl (1976)

(examining the history of professionalism), Schiesl (1977) (examining the

political agendas behind the dichotomy), and McSwite (1997) (analyzing

the founding period with particular focus on the political struggles that led

to promotion and maintenance of the dichotomy).

Despite the vast amount of knowledge and insight that the historical ap-


16/31


17/31

DEMIR 519

policy advocate, budget consultant, policy administrator, policy neutral, po-

litical advocate, political leader, political recruiter, and political campaigner.

Loveridge found that almost all city managers believed they should participatein the initiation, formulation, and presentation of policy proposals. Lewis

(1982) examined the role behavior of city managers and proposed seven

roles extending from what he called “traditional textbook administrator” to

“near-boss type.” Cooper’s (1991) “citizen-administrator” is also an important

conceptualization. Moore (1995) proposed two roles for public administra-

tors, as “technician” and “strategist,” and endorsed the latter as an ideal type

of public administrator role that would enable public administrators to create

public value. Selden, Brewer, and Brudney’s (1999) “principal” and “agent”

conceptualization is another one. The typology developed by Terry (2002)

included climbers, conservers, advocates, zealots, and statesmen. Svara (2006)developed a typology in which public administrators fall into one of four cat-

egories: isolated, manipulated, autonomous, or politicized. Svara’s typology

uses two factors: level of control of public administrators by elected officials

and degree of distance and differentiation between elected and administrative

officials. In many cases, the authors of these conceptualizations expressly or

implicitly favor one type over the other, and follow with prescriptions over

how public administrators should relate to the governance process. Although

valuable in their own right as descriptors of reality, most conceptualizations

offer little normative guidance, as there is not much empirical knowledge to

tell which roles work best, and under what circumstances they work.

Some public administration scholars, on the other hand, have looked into

the differences and similarities between politics, policy, management, and

administration, and developed a host of conceptualizations as a result. This sort

of conceptualization effort began with Woodrow Wilson (1887) and continued

with Goodnow (1900) and White (1937), in that they all rested their proposi-

tions on what they viewed as fundamental distinctions between politics and

administration. Some contemporary public administration scholars carry on

this tradition. Nalbandian (1994), among others, noted a number of impor-

tant distinctions between politics and administration. Overeem and Rutgers

(2003) identified 16 characteristics with which they attempted to crystallize

the distinctions between politics and administration. Based on the number anddegree of perceived differences and similarities, scholars develop normative

models that reflect their judgment as to the proper role of public administration

in the governance process. The politics–administration dichotomy stands as

one of the oldest among this type of models. The demise of the dichotomy

was followed by the emergence of alternative conceptualizations. One of these

models, gaining popularity in recent years, is Svara’s (1990) dichotomy-duality

model as explained earlier.

Some scholars develop more comprehensive models without special focus

on the distinctions between politics and administration. For many of these


18/31


19/31

DEMIR 521

Alabama and identified likely characteristics of bureaucrats that would be more

politically engaged. Abney and Lauth (1982), based on a survey of municipal

managers, examined elected officials’ involvement in administration and foundthat elected officials frequently interfere with administration. These studies

analyzed political–administrative relations, corroborating arguments that the

traditional boundaries of politics and administration have significantly shifted

over the past decades (Nalbandian, 1999).

A number of studies focused on the nature and quality of communica-

tion between elected and administrative officials, specifically addressing

the issues of conflict and cooperation among these officials (e.g., Carrel,

1962; Koehler, 1973). The unit of analysis, in this type of research, was

either individual managers or elected officials. A few researchers, however,

conducted empirical analysis at an agency level. For example, Heclo (1975)and Wolf (1999) studied the Office of Management and Budget to understand

the role of public administration in the policy-making process. Some public

administration scholars conducted analytical studies on decisions as the unit

of analysis. Fleischmann (1989), for example, examined rezoning decisions

in Atlanta, Georgia, for a year to see whether relations between professional

planners and elected officials comport with traditional understanding of how

administration and politics related to each other in local governments. He

found evidence in support of the idea that expertise helps minimize partisan

politics. Koven (1992) studied base-closing decisions to see whether the

politics–administration dichotomy holds currency in this special case where

the legislation was designed in a manner to isolate administration from poli-

tics. His analysis, however, showed the difficulties of that isolation despite

intentional legislative efforts. Also, quite a few other scholars looked into

the politics–administration relationship from a third-party point of view.

Stover (1995), for example, analyzed Burger–Rehnquist court decisions and

concluded that the court upheld traditional public administration principles.

His analysis implied that good public administration, from the court’s point

of view, is a function of commitment to traditional administrative principles

such as division of labor, definition, authority, unity, and responsibility.

Some studies attempted to understand how public administrators and

elected officials perceive each other (e.g., Lee, 2001, 2006). Lee (2001),for example, used his long experience as an elected official and concluded

that public administrators are perceived in a subordinate position vis-à-vis

elected officials and are expected to follow legislative directions without

serious argument. Nalbandian (1999) relied on interviews with managers

and elected officials to show evidence for mutual support and partnership

between the two.

Some scholars utilized descriptive data analysis to determine the degree of

politics versus professionalism of public administration. Newell and Ammons

(1987), for example, looked into the time-allotment patterns of municipal


20/31


managers and found that city managers spent an average of 17 percent of

their total time for political roles that involved community leadership. More

recently, French (2005) evaluated time allocations of mayor and managersin small cities and towns. His research found that managers in small cities

and towns spend more time on policy and management activities and less

time on political activities than mayors. Some other studies reported an in-

creasing use of management tools by managers, thereby implying growth in

professionalism of public administration, which implies a growing distance

between politics and administration (e.g., Poister & McGowan, 1984; Poister

& Streib, 1989).

Because political and policy activities of public administrators have al-

ways been of much interest to scholars, some studies focused on the political

competences of public administrators to evaluate the degree of performanceof administrators in policy and politics and to produce prescriptions about

proper roles for elected and administrative officials. In a survey to identify

critical skills needed by municipal managers, Kerrigan and Hinton (1980)

found that “situation analysis” and “assessment of community needs” ranked

high on the importance scale of city managers. The authors showed that more

technical knowledge and skill areas ranked lower on the importance scale,

a finding that further substantiated the shifting boundaries between politics,

policy, and administration. Some studies specified and tested hypotheses to

understand whether public administrators are effective in politics. For example,

Daniel and Rose (1991) measured the correlation between professionalism

and political acuity. Although the correlation between the two turned out to

be somewhat low, the authors presented the findings as empirical support to

the emerging ideal of blending professionalism and politics.

Finally, some researchers attempted to test theoretical models using both

qualitative and quantitative methodologies. Browne (1985) tested Svara’s

dichotomy-duality model and found some supportive evidence for the model;

however, the research had an important limitation in that it employed policy

initiatives as the only variable in the test. Dunn and Legge (2002) used three

models that they culled from the literature and surveyed local government man-

agers to understand whether public administrators’ relationships with elected

officials conform to the three models that public administration scholars hadused to characterize that relationship. They presented empirical evidence in

support of what they named the partnership model, suggesting a blend of roles

with respect to policy development and administration. Most recently, Demir

and Nyhan (2008) specified a theoretical model of the politics–administration

dichotomy and tested it with survey data collected from a nationwide sample of

city managers. The results of their study raised questions about the explanatory

power of the politics–administration dichotomy as a theoretical model.

In summary, public administration scholars have benefited from empirical

approach. It is clear that empirical research has produced important findings


21/31

DEMIR 523

and insights that subsequently were used to provide support to various posi-

tions taken by the proponents of the three schools. However, the focus of much

empirical research remains rather narrow; rarely did public administrationscholars specify and test comprehensive models. Because a large part of the

research has not been guided by an explicit or articulate theoretical framework,

most of the findings turned out to be mixed and inconclusive, open to being

interpreted in conflicting ways that may support one school or the other. For

example, it is quite possible to interpret a low yet positive correlation between

professionalism and political acuity (e.g., Daniel & Rose, 1991) as support

for the political school or the separation school, depending on the researcher’s

perspective and expectations.

EVALUATION AND THREE SUGGESTIONS

The separation, political, and interaction schools each contributed immensely

to our understanding of what roles public administrators do or should play

in the governance process of a democratic society. Historical, empirical, and

conceptual approaches adopted by public administration scholars proved to

be very prolific. A voluminous literature notwithstanding, it is clear that the

controversy remains largely unsettled. Challenged and critiqued by numerous

scholars, the separation school is still capable of responding to its critics. For

example, the political school proponents support a morally conscious public

administration; however, this precept rests on the assumption that moral im-

plications of policies are clear, which is an assumption that is hard to hold up.

The interaction school also has a number of limitations. First, the interaction

school underestimates the power imbalances between elected officials and

public administrators. In the process of interaction, the powerful side may

override the less powerful side. In other words, the interaction might result in

loss of either administrative competence or legislative supremacy. The role of

reciprocating values as a safety check remains untested. Second, by accepting

the dichotomy between politics and management, yet tolerating overlapping

roles and reciprocal influence, the interaction school neglects the risk of role

ambiguity and its probable consequences: The greater the role ambiguity is,

the more often administrators can engage in political activity with little chancethat it will be visible to the other party or to the public in general. This poses

great risk for democratic accountability.

It is clear that each school is supported by scholars to varying degrees

with historical, conceptual, and empirical approaches. It is also clear that

available research does not declare victory for one particular school of

thought. Depending on the context of the research, the perspective of the

researchers, foci of studies, and a host of influencing factors, the same

results may speak favorably for more than one school of thought. So,

what should be done? If the question of where public administration does


22/31


or should stand (vis-à-vis politics) is of significant importance to public

administration, how should we approach this question? I make the fol-

lowing three suggestions.

Suggestion 1

Each school addresses certain problems better than the other schools. So, if we

shift our focus from generic propositions to more specific problems, unique

contributions of each school to our understanding will become clearer. The

separation school might assist in isolating public administration from politi-

cal influences (such a need may emerge under particular circumstances); the

interaction school is helpful in getting elected and administrative officials to

cooperate (in cases where uncertainty and complexity may compel govern-mental actors to interact and cooperate for nonroutine tasks); and the political

school might assist in making the best use of politics to accomplish political

and social goals. In other words, we may focus on what is emphasized by

each school.

As mentioned earlier, each school proposes conceptual models that have

certain limitations and weaknesses. This is why the public administration com-

munity needs to keep the three schools in the intellectual inventory without

discarding a particular one. Where one school fails, the other school may

come to our rescue. If there are problems with politicized public administra-

tion, the separation school can provide a number of workable strategies that

would help distance public administration from politics and get the political–

administrative relations back to the point envisioned by the interaction school.

In cases where there is a palpable political void or extensive disagreement

among governmental actors, the political school will not just encourage public

administrators to undertake political activities but also educate them on the

art of political decision making. So, the theoretical usefulness and practical

relevance of each school depend on circumstances at a specific point of time

in a specific context.

It is also clear that the concept of the dichotomy, despite its normative

and empirical drawbacks, still helps. Many public administration scholars

use the concept of dichotomy as a foil to make clear the distinct features oftheir proposed alternative models. In fact, various conceptualizations have

been positioned against the dichotomy in hopes of clarifying the “proposed

alternative” or its unique contribution by drawing attention to the contrasts

with the dichotomy. It is also apparent that the dichotomy focuses our attention

on what distinguishes public administration as an academic discipline and

institutional practice (e.g., Meier, 1997; Rutgers, 2001). In that respect, the

concept of dichotomy and the idea of separation behind it remain valuable to

students of public administration. An exclusive focus on politics and power

games carries the risk of blurring the distinct features of public administra-


23/31


24/31


25/31


26/31


Finer, H. (1940). Administrative responsibility in democratic government.

Public Administration Review, 1, 335–350.

Fleischmann, A. (1989). Politics, administration, and local land-use regula-tion. Public Administration Review, 49, 337–344.

Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the face of power. Berkeley: University of

California Press.

Fox, C. J., & Cochran, C. E. (1990). Discretion advocacy in public admin-

istration theory: Toward a platonic guardian class? Administration &

Society, 22, 249–271.

Fox, C. J., & Miller, H. T. (1995). Postmodern public administration: Toward

discourse. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Frederickson, H. G. (1971). Toward a new public administration. In F. Marini

(Ed.), Toward a new public administration: The Minnowbrook perspec-tive (pp. 309–331). Scranton, PA: Chandler.

Frederickson, H. G. (1980). New public administration. Tuscaloosa:

University of Alabama Press.

Frederickson, H. G. (1997). The spirit of public administration. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

French, E. P. (2005). Policy, management, and political activities: A current

evaluation of the time allocations of mayors and managers in small cities

and towns. Social Science Journal, 42, 499–510.

Fry, B. R. (1989). Mastering public administration: From Max Weber to

Dwight Waldo. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.

George, R. E. (1916). Increased efficiency as a result of increased govern-

mental functions. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social

Science, 64, 77–88.

Goodnow, F. J. (1900). Politics and administration. New York: Macmillan.

Gulick, L., & Urwick, L. (Eds.). (1937). Papers on the science of administra-

tion. New York: Columbia University Press.

Hasset, W. L., & Watson, D. J. (2002). Long-serving city managers: Practical

application of the academic literature. Public Administration Review, 62,

622–629.

Heclo, H. (1975). OMB and the presidency—The problem of “neutral com-

petence.” Public Interest, 38, 80–98.Henry, G. T., & Harms, S. W. (1987). Board involvement in policy making

and administration. Public Administration Review, 47, 153–159.

Hoffman, M. C. (2002). Paradigm lost: Public administration at Johns

Hopkins University, 1884–96. Public Administration Review, 62, 12–

23.

Hyneman, C. S. (1978). Bureaucracy in a democracy. New York: Harper &

Brothers.

Karl, B. D. (1976). Public administration and American history: A century of

professionalism. Public Administration Review, 36, 489–503.


27/31

DEMIR 529

Kaufman, H. (1956). Emerging conflicts in the doctrines of public adminis-

tration. American Political Science Review, 50, 1057–1073.

Kerrigan, J. E., & Hinton, D. W. (1980). Knowledge and skills needs for tomor-row’s public administrators. Public Administration Review, 40, 469–473.

Klay, W. E. (1983). Fiscal constraints, trust, and the need for a new politics-

administration dichotomy. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 4,

44–53.

Koehler, C. T. (1973). Policy development and legislative oversight in coun-

cil manager cities: An information and communication analysis. Public

Administration Review, 33, 433–441.

Koven, S. (1992). Base closings and the politics-administration dichotomy

revisited. Public Administration Review, 52, 526–531.

Lee, M. (2001). Looking at the politics-administration dichotomy from theother direction: Participant observation by a state senator. International

Journal of Public Administration, 24, 363–384.

Lee, M. (2006). Political-administrative relations in state government: A leg-

islative perspective. International Journal of Public Administration, 29,

1021–1047.

Levitan, D. M. (1940). Political ends and administrative means. Public


Lewis, E. (1982). Role behavior of US city managers: Development and

testing of a multidimensional typology. International Journal of Public

Administration, 4, 135–155.

Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individuals in

public services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Lockard, D. (1962). The city manager, administrative theory, and political

power. Political Science Quarterly, 77, 224–236.

Long, N. (1949). Power and administration. Public Administration Review,

9, 257–264.

Long, N. (1954). Public policy and administration: The goals of rationality

and responsibility. Public Administration Review, 14, 22–31.

Loveridge, R. O. (1968). The city manager in legislative politics: A collision

of role conceptions. Polity, 1, 213–236.

Loveridge, R. O. (1971). City managers in legislative politics. Indianapolis:Bobbs-Merrill.

Lowery, D. (1993). A bureaucratic-centered image of governance: The found-

ers’ thought in modern perspective. Journal of Public Administration

Research and Theory, 3, 182–208.

Lynn, L. E. (2001). The myth of the bureaucratic paradigm: What traditional

public administration really stood for. Public Administration Review, 61,

144–160.

Marini, F. (1971). Toward a new public administration: The Minnowbrook

perspective. Scranton, PA: Chandler.


28/31


29/31

DEMIR 531

Roberts, A. (1994). Demonstrating neutrality: The Rockefeller philan-

thropies and the evolution of public administration, 1927–1936. Public

Administration Review, 54, 221–228.Rohr, J. A. (1986). To run a constitution: The legitimacy of the administra-

tive state. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

Rutgers, M. R. (1997). Beyond Woodrow Wilson: The identity of the study of

public administration in historical perspective. Administration & Society,

29, 276–300.

Rutgers, M. R. (2001). Splitting the universe: On the relevance of dichoto-

mies for the study of public administration. Administration & Society,

33, 3–20.

Sayre, W. S. (1958). Premises of public administration: Past and emerging.

Public Administration Review, 18, 102–105.Schachter, H. L. (1989). Frederick Taylor and the public administration

community: A reevaluation. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Schiesl, M. J. (1977). The politics of efficiency: Municipal administration

and reform in America: 1880–1920. Berkeley: University of California

Press.

Schuh, A. M., & Miller, G. M. (2006). Maybe Wilson was right: Espoused

values and their relationship to enacted values. International Journal of

Public Administration, 29, 719–741.

Selden, S. C., Brewer, G. A., & Brudney, J. L. (1999). The role of city man-

agers: Are they principals, agents, or both? American Review of Public

Administration, 29, 124–148.

Sparrow, G. (1984). The emerging chief executive: The San Diego experi-

ence. Urban Resources, 2, 3–8.

Spicer, M. W. (2001). Public administration and the state: A postmodern

perspective. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

Stillman, R. J. (1991). Preface to public administration: A search for themes

and direction. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Stover, C. P. (1995). The old public administration is the new jurisprudence.

Administration & Society, 27, 82–106.

Svara, J. H. (1985). Political supremacy and administrative expertise.

Management Science and Policy Analysis, 3, 3–7.Svara, J. H. (1987). Mayoral leadership in council-manager cities:

Preconditions versus preconceptions. Journal of Politics, 49, 207–227.

Svara, J. H. (1990). Official leadership in the city. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Svara, J. H. (1998). The politics-administration dichotomy model as aberra-

tion. Public Administration Review, 58, 51–58.

Svara, J. H. (1999a). Complementarity of politics and administration as a

legitimate alternative to the dichotomy model. Administration & Society,

30, 676–705.


30/31


Svara, J. H. (1999b). The shifting boundary between elected officials and

city managers in large council-manager cities. Public Administration

Review, 59, 44–53.Svara, J. H. (2001). The myth of the dichotomy: Complementarity of politics

and administration in the past and future of public administration. Public


Svara, J. H. (2006). Introduction: Politicians and administrators in the politi-

cal process—A review of themes and issues in the literature. International

Journal of Public Administration, 29, 953–976.

Terry, L. D. (2002). Leadership of public bureaucracies: The administrator

as conservator. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Thomas, C. L. (1990). The policy/administration continuum: Wisconsin

Natural Board decisions. Public Administration Review, 50, 446–449.Van Riper, P. (1983). The American administrative state: Wilson and the

founders—An unorthodox view. Public Administration Review, 44, 477–

490.

Waldo, D. (1980). The enterprise of public administration: A summary view.

Novato, CA: Chandler & Sharp.

Waldo, D. (1984). The administrative state: A study of the political theory of

American public administration. New York: Holmes & Meier.

Watson, R. P. (1997). Politics and public administration: A political profile

of local bureaucrats in Alabama. Administration & Society, 29, 189–200.

Whicker, M. L., Olshfski, D., & Strickland, R. A. (1993). The troublesome

cleft: Public administration and political science. Public Administration

Review, 53, 531–541.

White, L. D. (1937). Administration as profession. Annals of the American

Academy of Political and Social Science, 189, 84–90.

Wilson, W. (1887). The study of administration. Political Science Quarterly,

2, 197–222.

Wolf, P. J. (1999). Neutral and responsive competence: The Bureau of the

Budget, 1939–1948, revisited. Administration & Society, 31, 142–167.

Tansu Demir is an assistant professor of public administration in the Depart-ment of Public Administration at the University of Texas–San Antonio. Hereceived his Ph.D. in public administration from Florida Atlantic University.He previously taught classes at the University of Illinois–Springfield and theUniversity of Central Florida. His research interests include public administra-tion theory, bureaucratic politics, and public policy process. His research hasbeen published in such journals as Public Administration Review, Administra-tion & Society, and International Journal of Public Administration. His mostrecent research on the complementarity view of the politics–administrationrelationship was published in Public Administration Review.


31/31

Reproducedwithpermissionof thecopyrightowner. Further reproductionprohibitedwithoutpermission.

politics and administration three schools, three approaches, and three suggestions

Documents