Politics and Administration Three Schools, Three Approaches, And Three Suggestions

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 governance 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 development 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 historical, 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 of
public 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
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

503 

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 followed
Wilson’s 1887 article, the politics–administration dichotomy has gradually 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 conceptualizations 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 is
important 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 administration 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

demir

505

particular thought, but I also analyze the writings of various scholars whose descriptions of the politics–administration relationship might assist significantly
in identifying a particular train of thought on the question. It should be noted
that 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 intellectual thinking that promotes an agenda for separating politics from administration to the extent possible for a variety of normative and practical reasons.1
The separation school tends to view the governmental realm as divided into
two 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 administration. 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 distinction 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. Wilson’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

506 

Administrative theory & praxis  v  Vol. 31, No. 4

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 when
applied 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 begins
where the administrator begins, and the legislature decides that. Administration 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 suggest “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 administration 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 manager
put 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.

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. The
overarching goal of public administrators is to provide neutral and competent 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 obligations and loyalties” (1956, p. 1060). Three constitutive components of neutral
competence—neutrality, expertise, and hierarchy—help public administrators maintain distance from politics while ensuring their contributions to the
policy-making process.
In the separation school, administrative neutrality has been broadly interpreted. 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; professional 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 significant 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 proponents of the separation school rested their arguments on the premise that
public 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 structural 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

508 

Administrative theory & praxis  v  Vol. 31, No. 4

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 accountable
to 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 decisions 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 responsibility. The people elect a legislature to carry out their will and then
ordinarily 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 provides 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 communication, 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

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–administration dichotomy, efficiency depends upon responsibility, and responsibility 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 and
administrative 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 carrying 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 allowance for everything that the officials in the separate divisions bring
up for consideration. (1978, p. 446)

510 

Administrative theory & praxis  v  Vol. 31, No. 4

Svara, for example, emphasized the strength of a structural division (perhaps best exemplified in council-manager form in local governments), “in
council-manager cities, friction is reduced when responsibilities are divided
in a way that limits interference by one set of officials in the activities of
others” (1987, p. 213). The hierarchical nature of the administrative organization 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, capable
of 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 administrators 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 responsibilities for elected officials and public administrators. Public administrators are
linked to elected officials in a subordinate position. That is, public administrators look up to elected officials for policy direction, while making expert
contributions by engaging extensively in “how to do” questions. In the ideal
world of the political–administrative relationship, as conceived and promoted 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, accountable, and responsive public administration constitutes the vision of the
separation school.

demir

511

Two Major Schools Against Separation
The idea of separation has been subjected to intense critiques on both normative 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 account, 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 administration 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. Subordinates 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

512 

Administrative theory & praxis  v  Vol. 31, No. 4

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 assessment 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 issues
into 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 administration has both constitutive and instrumental characteristics, “political public
administration” does and should promote policy agendas that serve publicly
desirable 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

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 public
administrators 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 serves
a 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 administrators 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 of
the 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 central 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

514 

Administrative theory & praxis  v  Vol. 31, No. 4

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 the
requisite 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 political 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 the
political school is being explicit on the question of the extent of administrative 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 inextricably 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” of
each 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 governance 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 between
politics and administration by emphasizing logical and psychological differences, 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.

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, public
administrators 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 office 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 officials
are not allowed to interfere with the daily functioning of public administration. 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 influence, 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 empirical 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 and
politics, 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 communityoriented values. This point makes the interaction school differ from the sepa-

516 

Administrative theory & praxis  v  Vol. 31, No. 4

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 and
cooperation between elected and administrative officials an essential requirement 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 traditionally defined the relationship between elected and administrative officials in
superior–subordinate terms.
In the ideal political–administrative world, as suggested by the interaction 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 administration 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.

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 administration 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 councilmanager 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 institutional 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 distortions through a careful reading of the scientific management movement. Common 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 and
progress, 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-

518 

Administrative theory & praxis  v  Vol. 31, No. 4

proach provides, there are certain noteworthy limitations. First, many scholars
who utilize the historical approach placed an exclusive emphasis on prominent
individuals and their original intentions but neglected the power of thoughts in
their own right, regardless of what was intended by the founders. For example,
even if the progenitors did not mean a strict separation of policy from administration, as might be revealed by a careful reading of their most-neglected
writings, it is still quite possible to support a strict policy–administration dichotomy for a variety of reasons. Second, it is clear that the history entertains
no fixed meaning; its meaning is open to different interpretations. That is why
some believe that the dichotomy was never meant by the progenitors (e.g.,
Lynn, 2001; Svara, 1998) and yet, some others argue that the founders denied
a significant policy-making role to public administrators (e.g., Lowery, 1993;
Sayre, 1958). Sayre (1958), for example, argued that the founders assumed
the politics–administration dichotomy both as a self-evident truth and as a
desirable goal; administration was perceived as a self-contained world of its
own, with its own separate values, rules, and methods. Despite its significant
limitations, the historical approach is widely used, particularly to grant some
degree of legitimacy to emerging models. Svara, for example, in his efforts
to advance a complementarity view of the politics–administration relationship, frequently referred to the founding period of public administration for
inspiration and legitimacy:
The manager was viewed as a participant in the deliberations about
policy decisions who would offer a distinct perspective, although he
would not supplant the council’s policy-making prerogatives. . . . This
view provided for a clearer differentiation of roles, but the intermixture
of responsibilities was complex. (1998, p. 54)
The Conceptual Approach: A Search for Theories
According to Svara, “the heart of the problem in understanding the relationship
between politics and administration has been our inability to conceptualize it”
(1985, p. 4). Conceptualizations offer unique ways of understanding the phenomena under study and provide foundations upon which further research can
be conducted. Conceptualization efforts have flowed in three strands: public
administrator as the unit of analysis, the politics–administration distinctions,
and the whole political system as the unit of analysis.
Scholars create typologies that reflect a variety of roles for public administrators; each role suggests different levels of administrative involvement
in the governance process. In one of the earliest efforts, Bosworth (1958)
conceptualized three different roles, as the administrator manager, the policy
researcher and manager, and the community leader and manager. Loveridge
(1968) developed nine roles for city managers, including policy innovator,

demir

519

policy advocate, budget consultant, policy administrator, policy neutral, political advocate, political leader, political recruiter, and political campaigner.
Loveridge found that almost all city managers believed they should participate
in 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 administrators, 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 categories: 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 propositions 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 important 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 and
degree 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

520 

Administrative theory & praxis  v  Vol. 31, No. 4

scholars, the distinction is nonexistent, or they simply prefer not investing
much attention in subtle distinctions whatsoever. Some of the models are
descriptive of the policy process, and some others are more normative in
the sense that they not only describe the role of public administration in the
governance process but also prescribe desirable administrative behaviors.
These models include New Public Administration (e.g., Frederickson, 1980,
1997; Marini, 1971), Postmodern Public Administration (e.g., Fox & Miller,
1995; Spicer, 2001), New Public Management (e.g., Behn, 2001; Osborne
and Gaebler, 1992), and most recently, New Public Service (e.g., Denhardt
& Denhardt, 2000). These models draw more attention to public administrators’ relationships with other players in the policy process. Depending on the
framework and normative principles that guide a particular scholar, public
administration is reflected to exhibit particular characteristics and portrayed
to be in pursuit of a particular set of ideals.
The conceptual approach is important in the sense that it gives the entire
research enterprise a focus as to what concepts are important and need to be
studied and, therefore, facilitates data collection, analysis, and interpretation.
Although the conceptual approach improves our understanding on the role of
public administration in the governance process, there are significant problems. First, many conceptual models are limited in clarity. For example, the
dichotomy-duality model endorses overlapping roles and reciprocal influence
between elected and administrative officials on policy and administration;
however, the model is not clear as to what makes a problem policy or administration in nature. The lines drawn seem arbitrary, reflecting a particular
author’s personal observations, experience, or beliefs. Second, many of these
models are limited in the strength of empirical support, a problem that is addressed in more detail in the following section.
Empirical Approach: A Search for Fit Between Theory and Practice
Public administration scholars have produced a substantial amount of research
output with respect to the role of public administration in the governance
process. Research methodologies varied significantly, including interviews, anecdotal evidence, case studies, personal experiences or observations, surveys,
descriptive data analysis, hypotheses testing, and theoretical model construction and evaluation. In the following, I summarize empirical research that sheds
light on the role of public administration in the governance process.
In terms of topical interest, there has been much diversity in research
endeavors. Some studies focused on the political and policy role of public
administrators and others focused on elected officials’ involvement in public
administration (e.g., Abney & Lauth, 1982; Hasset & Watson, 2002; Koven,
1992; Loveridge, 1971; Nalbandian, 1994; Selden et al., 1999; Watson, 1997).
For example, Watson (1997) studied political profiles of local bureaucrats in

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 found
that 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 communication 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 politics. 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

522 

Administrative theory & praxis  v  Vol. 31, No. 4

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 managers
in 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 increasing 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 always been of much interest to scholars, some studies focused on the political
competences of public administrators to evaluate the degree of performance
of 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 managers to understand whether public administrators’ relationships with elected
officials conform to the three models that public administration scholars had
used 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

523

demir

and insights that subsequently were used to provide support to various positions taken by the proponents of the three schools. However, the focus of much
empirical research remains rather narrow; rarely did public administration
scholars 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 implications 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 chance
that 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

524 

Administrative theory & praxis  v  Vol. 31, No. 4

or should stand (vis-à-vis politics) is of significant importance to public
administration, how should we approach this question? I make the following 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 political 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 governmental 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 community 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 administration, 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 of
their 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-

demir

525

tion as an institution and autonomous discipline. That various antidichotomy
models are either being built upon or presented as reinterpretations of the
dichotomy is sufficient evidence for the benefit of paying attention to the
conceptual value of the separation (e.g., Montjoy & Watson, 1995). The
complementarity model, for example, borrows some ideas from the separation
school and incorporates the dichotomy into the model. So, in the end, each
school provides some help to its alternatives at a conceptual level. The next
step should be to refine these schools of thought so they can be made more
conducive to producing theoretical models.
Suggestion 2
Public administration scholars should continue their efforts to produce empirically testable hypotheses that reflect the important propositions of the three
schools and should evaluate these hypotheses with empirical data whenever
possible and appropriate. Consistent failure to accept the hypotheses of one
school is an indication of its weakness. This empirically based research approach may help us immensely to single out some of the weakest claims
that one particular school makes. In the end, we can focus our attention and
research efforts on what that school truly contributes and may potentially
contribute to our understanding.
Suggestion 3
Conceptual-theoretical models that explain the politics–administration relationship should communicate with one another more openly and explicitly.
Public administration scholars might test one model’s specific claims in the
other model’s area and see how the other model responds to those claims. If
the dichotomy model, for example, suggests low administrative involvement
in politics for fear of political identification, what do the competing models
offer to address this potential problem? The dichotomy-duality model, for
example, would respond with “restraining influence of reciprocating values”
as a check against the tendencies toward political corruption or administrative
tyranny. Has this hypothesis ever been tested? If an empirical test can show
in a satisfactory way that such a dynamic is at play, we can be more confident
in conceding a broader role to public administrators in the policy process.
We need more than intuitive appeal when it comes to important claims of
particular models. In sum, what I suggest here is that the proponents of the
three schools expose the most important claims or fundamental assumptions
of the school that they criticize and respond to those claims by formulating
and testing hypotheses. This is one way of achieving explicit interschool
communication. These efforts will certainly enhance our understanding of
many problems that surround government.

526 

Administrative theory & praxis  v  Vol. 31, No. 4

Conclusion
This article provided a broad examination of the literature on the role of public
administration in the governance process. In particular, I identified three major
schools of thought and three research approaches. As the literature review
clearly illustrated, the controversy over the proper role of public administration
in governance process is far from being concluded. Despite public administration scholars’ best efforts to garner support in favor of a particular school of
thought, the evidence they have used and the arguments they have presented so
far are mixed and inconclusive. This comprehensive review of the literature is
intended to provide an accessible resource to understand the state of research
on the question of where public administration stands in the governance process
of a democratic society. In the end, public administration, as an intellectual
enterprise, seems to lack an agreed-upon foundation. Instead, scholarly efforts
did and continue to flow in different directions that are inspired and supported
by different viewpoints and normative ideals. Some pragmatic steps can be
taken, as suggested in this paper, to improve communication between the three
schools of thought and to help answer some questions. The way this paper
distilled the public administration literature is unique, yet not foolproof. Different categorizations are possible, yet in the end, I suggest our goal should be to
enhance interschool communication and take some pragmatic steps to improve
our understanding of the role of public administration in the political process.
Notes
1. The advocates of the three schools draw upon both normative and empirical
arguments. It is important to note that normative and empirical dimensions of
arguments are closely knit. For example, that public administration scholars
develop normative propositions (should) is closely related to the way in which
they understand the cause–effect relationship of empirical facts (is). For
example, if some public administration scholars argue that poor planning ability
is a consequence of insufficient political guidance from elected officials, they
tend to prescribe that elected officials provide more political guidance, in the
belief that it will help increase the planning ability of public administrators (see
Demir & Nyhan, 2008).
2. The separation school, and its major dichotomy model, many notable
scholars argue, does not have a strong historical reality, as it has never existed
or been proposed by the progenitors of public administration, including Wilson
and Goodnow. However, some contemporary works doubt this and explain in
detail why the concept of separation is still relevant on theoretical and empirical
grounds. Among others, see Demir and Nyhan (2008), Overeem (2008), and
Schuh and Miller (2006). Whether the idea of separation was intended by the
founders of the field is also a matter of dispute among contemporary public
administration scholars. Under the historical approach, I explain this issue more
to show the diversity of the interpretations.

527

demir

References
Abney, G., & Lauth, T. P. (1982). Councilmanic intervention in municipal
administration. Administration & Society, 13, 435–456.
Abney, G., & Lauth, T. P. (1985). Interest group influence in city policy-making:
The views of administrators. Western Political Quarterly, 38, 148–161.
Adams, G. B., & Balfour, D. L. (1998). Unmasking administrative evil.
Oakland, CA: Sage.
Behn, R. D. (2001). Rethinking democratic accountability. Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution Press.
Bosworth, K. A. (1958). The manager is a politician. Public Administration
Review, 18, 216–222.
Browne, W. P. (1985). Municipal managers and policy: A partial test of Svara’s
dichotomy-duality model. Public Administration Review, 45, 620–622.
Carrel, J. J. (1962). The city manager and his council: Sources of conflict.
Public Administration Review, 22, 203–208.
Cook, B. (1996). Bureaucracy and self-government: Reconsidering the role
of public administration in American politics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Cooke, M. L. (1915). Scientific management of the public business. American
Political Science Review, 9, 488–495.
Cooper, T. L. (1985). The responsible administrator: An approach to ethics
for the administrative role. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cooper, T. L. (1991). An ethic of citizenship for public administration.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall College.
Daniel, C., & Rose, B. J. (1991). Blending professionalism and political
acuity: Empirical support for an emerging ideal. Public Administration
Review, 51, 438–441.
Davis, K. (1969). Discretionary justice: A preliminary inquiry. Westport,
CT: Greenwood Press.
Demir, T. (2009). The complementarity view: Exploring a continuum in
political-administrative relations. Public Administration Review, 69,
876–888.
Demir, T., & Nyhan, R. C. (2008). The politics-administration dichotomy:
An empirical search for correspondence between theory and practice.
Public Administration Review, 68, 81–96.
Denhardt, K. (1989). The management of ideals: A political perspective on
ethics. Public Administration Review, 49, 187–193.
Denhardt, R. B., & Denhardt, J. V. (2000). The new public service: Serving
rather than steering. Public Administration Review, 60, 549–559.
Dunn, D. D., & Legge, J. S. (2002). Politics and administration in U.S. local
governments. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12,
401–422.

528 

Administrative theory & praxis  v  Vol. 31, No. 4

Finer, H. (1940). Administrative responsibility in democratic government.
Public Administration Review, 1, 335–350.
Fleischmann, A. (1989). Politics, administration, and local land-use regulation. 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 administration 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 perspective (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 governmental 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 administration. 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 competence.” 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.

demir

529

Kaufman, H. (1956). Emerging conflicts in the doctrines of public administration. American Political Science Review, 50, 1057–1073.
Kerrigan, J. E., & Hinton, D. W. (1980). Knowledge and skills needs for tomorrow’s public administrators. Public Administration Review, 40, 469–473.
Klay, W. E. (1983). Fiscal constraints, trust, and the need for a new politicsadministration dichotomy. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 4,
44–53.
Koehler, C. T. (1973). Policy development and legislative oversight in council 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 the
other 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 legislative perspective. International Journal of Public Administration, 29,
1021–1047.
Levitan, D. M. (1940). Political ends and administrative means. Public
Administration Review, 3, 353–359.
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 founders’ 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.

530 

Administrative theory & praxis  v  Vol. 31, No. 4

Martin, D. W. (1988). The fading legacy of Woodrow Wilson. Public
Administration Review, 48, 631–636.
McSwite, O. C. (1997). Legitimacy in public administration: A discourse
analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Meier, K. J. (1997). Bureaucracy and democracy: The case for more bureaucracy and less democracy. Public Administration Review, 57, 193–199.
Miller, G. (2000). Above politics: Credible commitment and efficiency in the
design of public agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 10, 289–327.
Miller, H. T. (1993). Everyday politics in public administration. American
Review of Public Administration, 23, 99–116.
Montjoy, R. S., & Watson, D. J. (1995). A case for reinterpreted dichotomy
of politics and administration as a professional standard in council-manager government. Public Administration Review, 55, 231–239.
Moore, M. H. (1995). Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Nalbandian, J. (1994). Reflections of a “pracademic” on the logic of politics
and administration. Public Administration Review, 54, 531–536.
Nalbandian, J. (1999). Facilitating community, enabling democracy: New roles
for local government managers. Public Administration Review, 59, 187–197.
Newell, C., & Ammons, D. N. (1987). Role emphases of city managers and
other municipal executives. Public Administration Review, 47, 246–253.
Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Reading, MA: Addison
Wesley.
Ostrom, V. (1973). The intellectual crisis in American public administration.
Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Overeem, P. (2008). Beyond heterodoxy: Dwight Waldo and the politics–
administration dichotomy. Public Administration Review, 68, 36–45.
Overeem, P., & Rutgers, M. R. (2003). Three roads to politics and administration: Ideational foundations of the politics/administration dichotomy.
In Rutgers, M. R. (Ed.), Retracing Public Administration (pp. 161–184).
New York: Elsevier Science.
Pfiffner, J. P. (1985). Political public administration. Public Administration
Review, 45, 352–356.
Poister, T. H., & McGowan, R. P. (1984). The use of management tools in
municipal government: A national survey. Public Administration Review,
44, 215–223.
Poister, T. H., & Streib, G. (1989). Management tools in municipal government: Trends over the past decade. Public Administration Review, 49,
240–248.
Price, D. K. (1941). The promotion of the city manager plan. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 5, 563–578.

demir

531

Roberts, A. (1994). Demonstrating neutrality: The Rockefeller philanthropies 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 administrative 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 dichotomies 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 managers: Are they principals, agents, or both? American Review of Public
Administration, 29, 124–148.
Sparrow, G. (1984). The emerging chief executive: The San Diego experience. 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 aberration. 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.

532 

Administrative theory & praxis  v  Vol. 31, No. 4

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
Administration Review, 61, 176–183.
Svara, J. H. (2006). Introduction: Politicians and administrators in the political 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 Department of Public Administration at the University of Texas–San Antonio. He
received his Ph.D. in public administration from Florida Atlantic University.
He previously taught classes at the University of Illinois–Springfield and the
University of Central Florida. His research interests include public administration theory, bureaucratic politics, and public policy process. His research has
been published in such journals as Public Administration Review, Administration & Society, and International Journal of Public Administration. His most
recent research on the complementarity view of the politics–administration
relationship was published in Public Administration Review.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.