The Politics and Administration Dichotomy (1900-1926) tika larasati | March 14th, 2012 25 The development of a discipline science

can be explore from the paradigm change since Woodrow Wilson. Paradigm is one way of thinking, values, methods, fundamental principles, or the way to solve a problem that adopted by society at particular time (Kunt, 1970). But there ae challenges that from the outside or have a crisis and in other word called anomalies , So that time after time the belief in a paradigm that will be washed out. People will start looking for a more appropriate perspective, or in other words the new emerging paradigm. In the relationship with the development public administration science, the anomalies occured several times and seen in the perspective of the old to the new. As revealed by Nicholas Henry, he revealed that the standart of the science, public administrations developed as an academic field may be conceived as a succession of five overlaping paradigms. Like expressed by Robert T. Golembiewski that each paradigms includes in focus and locus. Focus is about explain the institutional what of the field or fundamental methods that used or a scientific way that can used tosolve a problem. One focus of public administration has been the study of certain prnciples of administration. But again the focus of the discipline have altered with the changing paradigms of public administration. Locus is about explain the institutional where of the field or some place where the method used and applied. A recuring locus of public administration is the goverment bureaucracy. As Golembieswki observes, the paradigms of public administration may be understood in term of focus and locus, when one has been relatively sharply defined in academic circles, the other has been ignored and vice-versa. Based on two categories of the discipline, Henry revealed that had occurred five paradigms of public administration. In this article we talk about one of five the paradigms that is The politics and Administration dichotomy. The Beginning First part to talk about paradigm is start from Woodrow Wilson. He largely set the tone for the early study of public administration in an essay titled The Study of Administration, published in the Political Science Quartely in 1887. In his essay, The science of administration is the latest fruit of that study of science of politics which was begun some twenty-two hundred ago. It is a birth for his own country, almost of his own generation. Administration is the most obvious part of government. It is government in action, it is the executive, the operative, the most visible side of government, and is of course as old as government it self. The field of administration is a field of business or affairs. It is removed from the hurry and strife of politics; it at most points stands apart from the debatable ground of constutional study. The object of administrative study is to rescure executive methods from the confusion and costlness of empirical experiment and set them upon foundationslaid deep in stable principle. A great deal of administration goes about incognito to most of the world, being confounded now with political management, and again with constitutional principle. Public administration is detailed and systematic execution of public law. Every particular application of general law is an act of administration. The study of administration, philosophycally viewed, is closely connected with the study of the proper distribution of constitutional authority. To be efficient it must discover the simplest arrangements by which responsibility can be unmistakably fixed upon officials. So far as administrative functions are concerned, all goverments have strong structural likeness. More than that, if they are to be uniformly useful and efficient, they must have structural likeness. Monarchies and democracies, radically different as they are in other respect, have in reality much the same business to look to. Overall wilsons essay has been variously interpreted by later scholars. He failed to amplify what the study of administration actually entails, what the proper relationship should be between the administrative and political realms, and wether or not administrative study could ever become an abstract science akin to the natural science. Public administration is worth studying. Political scientists would later create the first identifiable paradigm of public administration around wilsons contention. PARADIGM 1 : THE POLITICS AND ADMINISTRATION DICHOTOMY, 1900-1926 A paradigm 1 known as politics and administration dichotomy paradigm. The figures of that paradigm are Frank J. Goodnow dan Leonard D. White. Goodnow with his article with title Politics and Administration (1900) reveal that Politics must to focus with the policy or expression from the will of the society, while administration related with implementation from that policy or the will of the society.Goodnow shall find that there are three kindsof authorities which are enganged in the execution of the state will. In the first place there are the authorities which apply the law in concrete cases where controversies arise owing to the failure of private individuals or public authorities to observe the rights of others. That is known as Judicial authorities. Second place there are authorities which have general supervision of the execution of the state will and which are commonly referred to as executive authorities. Finally the authorities which are attending to the scientific, technical, and so to speak, commercial activity of the government, and which are in all countries, where such activities have attained prominence, known as administrative authoroties.

The function of politics, it has been shown, consists in the expression of the will of the state. The principle of the separation of powers in its extreme from cant, therefore, be made the basis any cobcrete political organizations. Politics must have a cer tain control over administration, using the broad senses heretofore attributed to them. Dichotomy between politics and administration manifested by the separation of legislative bodies in charge of advance of expressing the will of the people, and the executive in charge of implementing the will. Judicial bodies in this case help the legislative body responsible for assisting in setting objectives and formulating policies. The implementation from this paradigm is administration must to look as a free values, and directed to achieve efficiency and economic value from government bureaucracy. The emphasis of this paradigm was on locus where public administration should be. In other way too that still about politics and administration dichotomy, Wilson originally Wilson originally considered politics and administration as independent, but later embraced version of the dichotomy, which assumed that politics and administration interact to improve the organic state .In this time Wilson asserted that administrators would directly interpret and respond to public opinion. Therefore, they should be involved in the policy process and elected officials should be involved in the administrative process. The main idea of Wilson is dichotomy can be professional between bureaucracy and administration without intervention from politics. Because they has different locus to do their job. Other figure talk about the dichotomy between politic and administratiion. There are a big question aboutadministration itself. Some have even questioned whether public administration is a separate discipline or field, or whether it is simply a subdiscipline of political science. In early twentieth century, Weber also arrived to a dichotomy between politics and administration, but from the opposite direction of Wilson and Goodnow. Weber argued that politics are too weak to curb administrative power, and that is the danger of government by functionaries that treat government. Therefore, he insisted that it was essential that administration stay out of politics (Weber, 1919/1968: 28). Weber make a draft of draw a sharp line between administrators and politicans : According to his proper vocation, the genuine civil servantshould not engage in politics, but administer, above all impartially. Hence, he shall precisely not do what the politician, the leader as well as his following, must always and necessarily do, namely, fight. For partisanship, fight, passion are stadium are the politicians element. (Weber, 1919/1968: 278) According to Weber opinion, in the political controversies public administrators should operate above all impartially and remain politically neutral. In other word, It should be said that in founder s views it was partisan politics they wanted to keep apart from public administration rather than politics (Van Riper, 1984: 209; Ranney, 1949). Overeem (2005: 317) contended that in its classical conceptualizations the dichotomy between politics and administration implied a deep concern about the political neutrality of administrators. Whether attempts were made to take politics out of administration, as in the case of Wilson and Goodnow, or the other way around, as in the case of Weber, the aim was always to administration impartial, an outsider to political controversy. Yang and Holzer (2005: 114) believed that in explanating Wilson and Goodnow, practitioners and academicians incorporated their own beliefs and reconstructed (or distorted) the two authors intentions. There is a misunderstanding , they argued, is no surprise because in light of the Progressive context Openness to the separation of administration from politics was necessary if public administration was to emerge as an autonomous field, an urgent and legitimate attitude at a time when politics perversely intruded into administration, as exemplified by the spoils system. There is an agreement that the idea of separation between politics and administration or we called it dichotomy diverged from the earlier approaches by Wilson and Goodnow. Van Riper argue that Wilson and Go odnows ideas do not correspond to a dichotomy. Many figures too like Waldo (1948: 108), Appleby (1949: 16), Golembiewski (1977: 9), and Caiden (1984: 60) also have same views same with Van Riper. While another figures like Rabin and Bowman (1984: 4) content that the distinction between politics and administration identified by Wilson and Goodnow had been converted by thirties authors into a dichotomy. Van Riper (1984: 209-10) also argued that between, 1910 and 1950, there did in the literature and practice of public administration a kind of distance between politics and administration. The need for a sharp and clearly division was justified to permit scientific methods to be established, and these methods both closed off administration to the untrained politician and at the same time made the administrator an expert who was above politics. In that point of you , the politics and administration were differentiated not in terms of principle, but in terms of specialization and the division of labor. Summarizing from all that views that explain before from many of figures, It should be said that the dichotomy model was not a direct idea identified by founders of public administration itself, but a transformation of those ideas to make them part of the mechanistic approach that dominated in the twenties and thirties. The idea of clearly separation (dichotomy model) was part of scientific management and the principles of administration that abandoned starting 1940 and replaced by ideas that emphasized interaction between politics and administration. Publc Administration and the Universities : Origins Political science, as a report issued in 1914 by the committee on Instruction in Government of the American Political Science Assosiation stated, was concerned with training for citizenship, professional preparations like law and journalism, educating researches, and training experts and to prepare governmental positions. Public administration therefore, was something

more than a significant subfield of political science; indeed, it was a principal reason of being for the discipline. As an indication of public administrations importance to political science, a Committee on Practial Training for Public Service was established in 1912 by the American Political Science Assosiation, and in 1914 its report recomended with unusual foresight that special or we called it proffesional schools were needed to train public administrators, and the new technical degrees might also be necessary for this purpose. The relations between the public administrator in the academics and the public administrators is the practitioners were at this time quite close indeed, little distinction was made between the two. Public administration began picking up academic legitimacy in the 1920s that notable in this regard was the publication by Leonard D. Whites Introduction to the Study of Public Administration in 1926. Public administration is capable of becoming a value free science in its own right. And the mission of administration is economy and efficiency, period. Since administration become a discipline science. Thare many schools that interest to insert the study of public administration in their academy. The uses of the dichotomy The Dichotomy as a Strategy for Political Change The literature in public administration often presents the 19th-century civil service reformers as primarily interested in the effi ciency and morality of the public service ( Van Riper 1958 , 96 135). This view overlooks the extent to which civil service reform was aimed at fundamental political change. One of the figure that give the theory or the opinion is Davvid E. Easton. According to Easton views that Politics have tended more and more to become a trade, or separate occupation. High character and capacity have become disassociated from public life in the popular mind. The reformers believed that patronage was the chief political resource of such unfi t politicians and that once merit systems drastically reduced it, a far better class of political leaders would emerge. There another figure that talk about this case, that is George Willian Curtis In his view, that system creates a mercenary political class, an oligarchy of stipendiaries, a bureaucracy of the worst kind, which controls parties with relentless despotism, imposing upon them at the elections issues which are prescribed not by the actual feeling and interest of the country but solely by the necessities and profi t of the oligarchy ( 1880). It is important to note that although the reformers believed merit systems would supply the best public servants, the more important point was to end patronage and safeguard against both partisan coercion and offi cial favoritism ( Eaton 1880 , 365). The dichotomy was a strateg ic tool for bringing about fundamental change in the nations political leadership. The dichotomy and the professionals. Public administration in general was still new when the Despression struck in 1929. And there was good reason to believe that a crops of professional government administrators would be seen as a disposable luxury by elected office holders, especially in hard-pressed smaller governments. The literature city management stoutly upheld the separation of politics from administration long after the more general field of public administration had abandoned it, and city managers were still portraying themselves (misleadngly) to the public as bland, bloodless, apolitical, and clerical well into the 1960s. In fact, even oday research indicate that even though city managers assume a highly activist leadership role in city government, many if not most, are still uncomfortable with this role because it seems to violate the traditional separation of administration from politics. Complementarity of politcs and administrations Complementarity reconciles what have seemed to be contractditory even paradoxiacal (Harmon 1995) aspects of public administration. How can politicans maintain control and at the same time allow administrations to maintain their independence to adhere to professional values and standards and to be responsible to the public?. Elected officials could in theory, dominate administrative practice, but they are constrained by a respect for administrative competence and commitment. Administrators could use their considerable resources to become self-directed, but they are restrained by a commitment to accountability in the complementary relationship. Overhead democracy by citizens and politicans can work, but only if it is accompanied by undergirding responsibility from administrators. The relationship between elected officials and administrators could be seen as simply the interaction between political control and professional independence. Control involves the capacity to set direction and maintain oversight, while independence involves asserting proffesional perspectives in policy formation and adhering to professional standards in implementation. The interplay between control and independence with the restraining effect of reciprocating values, produces anarray of models for describing the political administrative relationship.

The final part that is the largest space in figure is the zone of complementarity. Svara argue that most interactions among officials reflect complementarity, and evidence from local governments in 14 countries supports this generalization. Although in earlier times there was greater emphasis on subordination of administrators linked to greater reliance on hierarchy as an organizational principle, interdependence and reciprocal influence are common and longstanding. A condition that presumably was common earlier in the century, high accountability and moderate independence, would fit in the upper-left corner of the complementarity quadrant, whereas recent experience with moderate control and extensive administrative initiative would be in the lower-right corner. Svara assert that Complementarity Model entails ongoing interaction, reciprocal influence, and mutual deference between elected officials and administrators. Administrators help to shape policy, and they give it specific content and meaning in the process of implementation. Elected officials oversee implementation, probe specific complaints about poor performance, and attempt to correct problems with performance through fine-tuning. Conclusions The result of Paradigm 1 is to strengthen the notion of a distinct politics or administrations dichotomy by relatinf it to a corresponding value or fact of dichotomy. Therefore, that is not to be false if we say that the politics-administration dichotomy is the important part of the public administration identity. Thus, awareness of its history can be effective in properly understand the field of public administration and rightly recognition its problems. Largely because of the emphasis on science and facts in public administration, a foundation was laid for the later discovery of certain scientific principles of administration. References Henry, Nicholas. Public Administration and Public Affairs Frank J. Goodnow, Politics and Administration : A Study in Government (New York: Russell& Russell, 1900), pp 17-26 Wilson, Woodrow. The study of Administration Tahmasebi, Reza & Mahdi Musavi. 2011. Politics-Administration Dichotomy : A Century Debate Rosenbloom , D. 2008. The politic-Administration Dichotomy in U.S Historical Context. American University SVARA, J.H., 2001, The myth of the dichotomy: Complementarity of politics and administration in the past and future of publi c administration. Public Administration Review. North California State University