Attachments

Re-Approaching the Politics/ Administration Dichotomy and Its Impact on Administrative Ethics KAIFENG YANG AND MARC HOLZER

Abstract

Ethics research is often assumed to have gained momentum only after the “demise” of the politics/administration dichotomy, but the assumption is problematic to the extent that the dichotomy’s demise is dubious. This article clarifies the link between the dichotomy and ethics, emphasizing that administrators make ethical choices in an embedded and changing web of political and administrative constraints. The evolution of the dichotomy and administrative ethics is reviewed dialectically in three historical stages from the Progressive Era to the present. The discussion argues that globalization, privatization, and decentralization are changing the configura- tion and dynamics of politics/administration that in turn shape administrative ethics. It concludes that the scope of government ethics extends beyond public administra- tors, that the stereotype of “bad bureaucrats” should be rejected, and that the ethical mentality should be renewed to balance seemingly opposing values.

Is it valid to assume that ethics research gained momentum only after the “demise” of the politics/administration dichotomy (Cooper 1994; Rohr 1978)? This assump- tion is problematic to the extent that the dichotomy’s demise is dubious. The di- chotomy continues as a theoretical force, variously reinterpreted as:

• a professional standard (Rosenbloom 1993),

• an institutional ban on particularism (Montjoy and Watson 1995),

Public Integrity, Spring 2005, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 111–127. © 2005 ASPA. All rights reserved.

ISSN 1099-9922/2005 $9.50 + 0.00.

Kaifeng Yang and Marc Holzer

112 • P U B L I C I N T E G R I T Y SPRING 2005

• an ideological doctrine (Lee 1995),

• a structural tension (Skok 1995),

• a complementarity (Svara 2001), and

• an ideal type (Rutgers 2001).

Politics and administration are still considered separate ways of thinking and decision-making that differentiate noncareer and career executives (Dolan 2000; Klingner, Nalbandian, and Romzek 2002). What, then, is the relationship be- tween the dichotomy and ethics?

The dichotomy between politics and administration is relevant because it embod- ies two distinct ethical frameworks: the bureaucratic ethos and the democratic ethos. The lack of consensus in ethics is largely reflected in the Friedrich-Finer debate, which developed as an argument between the bureaucratic ethos and the democratic ethos—or put differently, between approaches that can be described as low road and high road, legally enforceable and aspirational, or “objective” and “subjective.” The debate concerns the proper role of administrators in the Constitution and in the demo- cratic process, and it manifests itself in the greater or lesser attention given to the

dichotomy at various times. Reexamining the dichotomy may be helpful in balancing dif- ferent approaches.

Administrators work in an embedded and changing web of political and administra- tive constraints. Clarifying the link between

the dichotomy and ethics may enable them to better understand a decision con- text, recognize new questions arising out of the changing relationship between the political and the administrative, identify threats (in various guises) to administra- tive ethics, and, ultimately, make democratic ethical decisions. As Waldo (1980, 113) concludes, “if we cannot clarify the ethics of the organizational world, per- haps it will help if we can advance understanding of the complexity and confu- sion.” The linking of ethics and the dichotomy does not aim to explain ethics violations outlined in the law, but helps administrators make hard ethical choices and display strong ethical leadership.

Historical Review of the Dichotomy and Ethics

Traditional analyses of public administration tend to focus on the dichotomy’s onto- logical validity from a realist perspective, inquiring whether the political and ad- ministrative worlds are really separated. Other aspects are often overlooked, such as the existence of the dichotomy as a social construct, its methodological and episte- mological importance, and its practical relevance. Most analyses follow the “internalist” approach (Toulmin 1972, cited in Roberts 1994), which characterizes the process by which ideas evolve as a dialogue within the academic community alone. As Roberts (1994) contends, the inability to explain the dichotomy relates to the incompleteness of our understanding of the process by which ideas about public administration evolve.

In addition, most of the analyses adopt an absolutist view of the dichotomy as an extreme separation, with no connection or interrelation between politics and admin-

Administrators work in an embedded

and changing web of political and

administrative constraints.

Re-Approaching the Politics/Administration Dichotomy and Its Impact on Administrative Ethics

P U B L I C I N T E G R I T Y SPRING 2005 • 113

istration. This conceptualization is too simplistic. Although the term “dichotomy” is flexible and elusive, it usually refers to a “separation into or between two groups or things that are opposed, entirely different” (OALDCE 1994). It contains ingredients of interaction, interdependence, and transmutation. Daoism depicts Yin and Yang as a fundamental dichotomy: totally opposed and different, but each depending on the other and each able to transform into the other. Yin can become Yang, Yang can be- come Yin, and everything changes. Dichotomy or contradiction is also a building block in Hegel’s and Marx’s philosophies, meaning a structural tension with inter- dependence. As such, politics and administration could be viewed as shown in Figure 1.

Acknowledging the role of the “history of ideas” (Spicer 2002) and of pragma- tism (Garrison 2000), this essay offers a historical analysis that considers the fol- lowing issues: What is the dominant problem of government? What is ethical public administration? How can we achieve it? Changes in administrative ethics may be connected to changes in the politics-administration configuration.

Stage 1: From the Progressive Era to the 1940s

Although the dichotomy was not current as a theoretical construct until the late 1940s (Svara 1999), when it first became an important topic in the literature, most scholars now trace it to Woodrow Wilson (1887). Wilson’s essay was not cited for many years after publication, but it is an exemplar of an important stream of re- formist thinking about government in the late nineteenth century. Wilson origi- nally considered politics and administration to be independent and isolated, but later embraced the European version of the dichotomy, which assumed that poli- tics and administration interact to improve the organic state (Martin 1988). He did not hold to an absolutist view, however, arguing that administrators should be in- volved in the policy process and elected officials should be involved in the admin- istrative process.

Wilson’s change of mind can be explained by his triple orientation: comparative perspective, constitutional focus, and conservative democratic political philosophy (Fry and Nigro 1997). On the one hand, Wilson admired the administration of Euro- pean countries and proposed learning from them, which would not have been pos- sible unless administration was distinctly separate from politics. On the other hand,

Figure 1. Politics–Administration as Yin–Yang

Yin Politics

Yang Administration

Kaifeng Yang and Marc Holzer

114 • P U B L I C I N T E G R I T Y SPRING 2005

his ultimate concern was to promote democracy, for he believed that the function of administration was to rescue democracy from its own excesses.

The European version of the dichotomy was accepted by Goodnow and many other writers. Goodnow (1900) insisted that the function of politics was to express the state’s will, the function of administration was to execute the state’s will, and politics must have a certain control over administration. He held that it was analyti- cally possible to separate administration from politics, but practically impossible to add the two functions to one branch of government or another. Therefore, maintain- ing a harmony between politics and administration was the reason for the existence of the modern party system.

In deciphering Wilson and Goodnow, practitioners and academicians incorpo- rated their own beliefs and reconstructed (or distorted) the two authors’ intentions. This misreading is no surprise, 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. Given that their audiences had long awaited a neutral, competent public workforce, Wilson and Goodnow were viewed as focusing only on the separation as- pect of the dichotomy. Their appreciation of the interaction perspective became too trivial for most readers to notice. Such a one-dimensional interpretation eventually became a social construct, departing from its original meaning and taking on its own life as rhetoric, and the rhetoric functioned in promoting competent government and strong democracy via continuing efforts to separate administration from politics. This “historical” stage extended from Wilson to Gulick to the Hoover Commissions.

Classifying Wilson and Gulick in one category is, of course, open to criticism. Waldo (1948), for example, argued that the dichotomy invalidated the arguments of reorganizers like Lipson, Friedrich, and Gulick, who favored making governors the only elected administrative officers, and thus Wilson, Goodnow, and Willoughby (1927) were in contradiction to the reorganizers. Waldo contended that Gulick of- fered the possibility of a new administrative theory that would annul the dichotomy.

Yet Wilson, Goodnow, and Willoughby shared with the reorganizers essentially the same concept of dichotomy. For the reorganizers, placing public administration under presidential control did not violate the dichotomy, because their presidential ideal was depoliticized, and they held that “executive power [was] driven by mana- gerial goals, not partisan commitments” (Arnold 1995, 413). The president would be the representative of public administration, embodying the values of efficiency rather than politics and uniting three functions: political leader, head of the nation, and chief executive administrator (Brownlow, Merriam, and Gulick 1937). As Roberts com- ments, they “not only asserted that there was a distinction between politics and admin- istration, but behaved in a way that would substantiate that claim” (1994, 229).

In fact, rather than rejecting the concept, Gulick was searching for an alternative rationale. In his view, politics and administration were differentiated not in terms of principle, but in terms of specialization and the division of labor. He said:

The reason for separating politics from administration is not that their combination is a violation of a principle of government. The reason for insisting that the elected legislative and executive officials shall not interfere with the details of administration, and that the rank and file of the permanent administrators shall be permanent and skilled and shall not meddle with politics, is that this division of work makes use of

Re-Approaching the Politics/Administration Dichotomy and Its Impact on Administrative Ethics

P U B L I C I N T E G R I T Y SPRING 2005 • 115

specialization and appears to give better results than a system where such a differen- tiation does not exist. (cited by Waldo 1948, 124)

In terms of ethics, the dichotomy was a strategy to reduce the serious erosion of the high standards that had characterized the early American democracy. Thanks to the reformers’ efforts, ethical standards in government were “praiseworthy” by the 1950s (White 1955). By then, many professional associations and federal agencies had begun to set out principles and values to guide their members. The code of the International City/County Management Association included the dichotomy, the merit principle, community spirit, honor, integrity, justice, and social responsibility. The Federal Employees’ Creed of Service, drafted at the close of World War II, held that:

We as members of the civil service accept our obligation and our opportunity to serve the American people well and in full measure, doing our best to further the free and democratic institutions of our country. We believe it is our duty to:

Carry out loyally the will of the people as expressed in our law;

Serve the public with fairness, courtesy, integrity, and understanding;

Help improve the efficiency, economy, and effectiveness of our work;

And thus do our part in performing the great services of the Government. (White 1955, 462)

Clearly, the dichotomy between the bureaucratic ethos and the democratic ethos was not absolute. Administrative values included not only efficiency, economy, and effectiveness, but also law, public service, justice, and integrity. Although the re- formers advocated the dichotomy, nonpartisanship, and efficiency, they did not ne- glect their democratic purposes. Admittedly, the respective priorities of the values were not carefully assigned, with efficiency and nonpartisanship appearing to be dominant, but this was because democratic values were obviously fundamental and functioning as backdrop. Businesslike and scientific values were seen as a means to rescue and complement, rather than replace, democratic values. It was beneficial, in a practical sense, to use bureaucratic control as the prime tool to ensure ethical behaviors, because conflicts between managerial values and democratic values were not regarded as significant.

The entire argument is apparent if one pays attention to other writers associ- ated with the Progressive movement, especially those affiliated with the New York Bureau of Municipal Research, such as William Allen, Frederick Cleveland, and William Mosher. As the first public organization to use Frederick Taylor’s scien- tific principles to deal with urban problems, the bureau promoted scientific execu- tive tools for budgeting, personnel, organization, and management. The bureau’s staff are considered to have been believers in the politics/administration dichotomy because they argued for the need for administrative power commensurate with responsibility and the importance of professional public service with tenure in office. The bureau’s shift to a position more “scientific” and less “controversial” or “political,” as urged by John D. Rockefeller’s ultimatum in 1914, manifests an administrative orientation of neutrality separated from the influence of politics (Stivers 1995).

On the other hand, the bureau viewed scientific tools as purely instrumental to a

Kaifeng Yang and Marc Holzer

116 • P U B L I C I N T E G R I T Y SPRING 2005

humane and just society, and to a democracy responsive to its people (Lynn 2001; Schachter 1995). For example, Frederick A. Cleveland (1913, v) wrote that such tools were “means devised by organized citizenship for making its will effective; for determining what the government shall be, and what the government shall do; for making the qualified voter an efficient instrument through which the will of the people may be expressed; for making officers both responsive and responsible.” His primary goal was “enlightened people,” “informed public conscience,” and demo-

cratic government. In essence, although “ef- ficiency” seemed to be a dominant value, the inherent orientation of the bureau’s writing and practice was really “efficient citizen- ship.” Wamsley and Wolf (1996) observe that traditional public administration did incor- porate the idea of collaboration, a moral per-

spective on the public interest, and a concern for democratic administration. In short, in this historical stage, efficiency and neutrality were, and should have

been, the dominant values. Efficient and nonpartisan behaviors were necessarily ethical impetuses at the time, with the democratic ethos in the background. Scholars can always “rediscover” democratic values back in this era, in the world of the “bu- reau men” (Schachter 1995) or in the world of “settlement women” (Stivers 1995), but there is no doubt that the dominant sentiments were science, rationality, effi- ciency, and neutrality.

Stage 2: From the 1950s to the Late 1970s

During the late 1940s, an absolutist notion of the dichotomy dominated the field of public administration, although John Gaus, Leonard White, and Marshall Dimock had been arguing since the 1930s that administrators should have a role in policy- making. The principles of scientific management were forcefully challenged by Herbert Simon, although he was not really opposed to the dichotomy, given his in- sistence on fact-value separation. In the 1950s, efforts were made to reshape the field, and a main theme was the interdependence between values and the adminis- trative process. In the 1960s, the role of administrators in policy-making was em- phasized because government was increasingly troubled by complex social, economic, and security problems, including civil rights and poverty. The reform agenda “took government’s most pressing needs as increased capacities for designing and assess- ing the efficacy of public policies” (Arnold 1995, 414). This tendency was strength- ened in the 1970s, when the Vietnam War, Watergate, and the energy crisis all had an impact on the balance between politics and administration, and thus on administra- tive ethics.

Because the political nature of administration was highlighted, and the dichotomy denounced as false, many believed that administrators should actively apply their personal values and judgments to policy-making. This view could be justified on the grounds that there was a relative consensus on the identification of social problems and the content of a reform agenda. But one cannot conclude that the dichotomy disappeared, because the tension continued. For example, incremental legislative processes, rooted in pluralist interests, limited the use of a Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System advocated by the executive branch. Administrators often

The dichotomy was a strategy to reduce

the serious erosion of the high

standards that had characterized the

early American democracy.

Re-Approaching the Politics/Administration Dichotomy and Its Impact on Administrative Ethics

P U B L I C I N T E G R I T Y SPRING 2005 • 117

treated the dichotomy as an ethical standard, and all sides of the policy triangle had their own particular standards. Strong forces advocated the weakening of political control over the executive branch, partly reflected in such legislative reforms as freedom of information and whistle-blower protection.

The literature largely disregarded this tension. As Rosenbloom (1993, 504) points out, “the political power struggle underlying the politics-administration dichotomy has been largely ignored or somewhat misunderstood in mainstream public admin- istrative thought. The dichotomy was a weapon in a monumental struggle between two thoroughly different systems of political ethics.”

The dichotomy stood out in criticisms partly because academia’s “elimination” pro- posals had a lagging effect in the world of practitioners, and partly because the propos- als neglected the structural dichotomy.

An alternative explanation maintained that one aspect of the dichotomy—the value- and politics-free administrative process—was (and should be) rejected, while another— the tension between politics and administration—should be kept on the agenda. Ex- panded bureaucratic discretion validated administrators’ increasing role in policy-making and the demise of the functional dichotomy, but it also validated the tension between administration and politics. As compared to the first historical stage, the “cognitive” focus now shifted to the connection aspect of the dichotomy, which reflected the internal development trend of the two parties to the dichotomy. The trend is, then, a cyclic process of integration-contradiction-integration.

The shift was understandable, because the governing problem shifted when “the basic institutions of the American democracy were being challenged at their very core and raised the question: Could our government still provide the mechanisms through which we could govern ourselves fairly and peacefully?” (Cohen and Eimicke 1998). The problems were largely political—elected officials and political appoin- tees representing differentiated interests constituted a threat to ethical government. In this politicized context, ethical concerns of equity and justice became unavoid- able for administrators implementing policies.

Ethical considerations were evident in the New Public Administration (NPA). Frederickson (1976), aware of the need for efficiency and economy, emphasized that equity, responsiveness, participation, and citizenship were to be maximized. He argued that administrative values should include democratic ethos, and should be executed by administrators as responsible individuals. Administrators for the first time were asked to utilize their personal value judgments in public decision-mak- ing. However, the NPA’s “egalitarian and redistributive thrust was too controversial to serve as a broad-based ethical standard for the entire field of public administra- tion” (Rohr 2000, 421). The structural and managerial barriers, as identified by Frederickson, were too difficult to overcome in fulfilling the NPA’s ideals, and the Minnowbrook Conference did not offer rigorous empirical evidence or practical solutions.

In short, the social-practical context called for value-involved governmental activities, which directly reoriented one side of the dichotomy, the politics, and in turn, through the internal mechanism between politics and administration, reori- ented public agencies that had gained power and independence. Ethical concerns in this period had become salient in the field, but the “high road” of ethics could not be enforced and maintained because the problem lay beyond administrators and administration.

Kaifeng Yang and Marc Holzer

118 • P U B L I C I N T E G R I T Y SPRING 2005

Stage 3: From the Late 1970s to the 1990s

Uveges and Keller (1997) observe a return to the dichotomy in the 1980s, along with gathering momentum for privatization, formal training for managers, decentraliza- tion, productivity strategies, and efforts to restore esteem and professional iden- tity. The return continued in the 1990s as Reinvention and the New Public Management (NPM) obtained currency. The Reinvention movement reincarnated the dichotomy in five ways: distinguishing between policy and management, ex- tending it from the inner workings of government to the body politic, freeing ad- ministration from political controls in the form of red tape, redefining accountability, and specifying congressional action as politics and presidential action as manage- ment (Carroll 1995).

To say that the dichotomy has “returned” is inaccurate because of the implication that it had faded away. What really returned was a focus on the contradictions inher- ent in the dichotomy in response to increasing tension between politics and admin- istration, manifested in the contradiction between the merit system and the “less government” efforts throughout the 1980s and 1990s. Although Reagan, Nixon, Carter, and Clinton all favored presidential control and less administrative power, that trend followed the inherent logic of the dichotomy—the more powerful administrative agencies become, the greater control political institutions desire. Given such intense tension, efforts to assert political control were strongly opposed. According to Volcker (1988), “the inexorable effect [of these efforts] is that the career paths of permanent civil servants are truncated at lower levels of authority and responsibility” and this leads to a “quiet crisis.” The logic is a reflection of the dichotomy—the more pow- erful public administration has become, the more control the president and Con- gress need. Accountability is, therefore, another side of the dichotomy.

Certainly, the connection side of the dichotomy did not disappear. Even Osborne and Gaebler (1992) advocate not only entrepreneurship and economic values, but also community spirit and democratic values. But as happened with Wilson and Goodnow, Osborne and Gaebler have been misread at a time when “depoliticizing” administration remains an inevitable remedial strategy for conciliating bureaucracy and democracy” (Kaufman 2001).

The return of the dichotomy and these associated movements was often denounced. Reinvention was criticized for encouraging government to be too dispersed, less controllable, and less accountable (Moe 1994; Nathan 1995). It was also criticized for its long-range costs in terms of administrative capacity and social equity vis-à- vis short-run efficiency (Frederickson 1996, 1999). A major effort was made to de- mocratize the administrative state, such as the Blacksburg Project’s efforts to solve the legitimacy crisis of public administration by restoring the concepts of the public interest, the vocational quality of the public service, and public administrators as constitutional representatives in their own right (Wamsley et al. 1990; Wamsley and Wolf 1996). Wamsley and Wolf (1996, 21) conclude that “the necessary legitimacy . . . ultimately . . . must come by deepening the democratic character of public ad- ministration.” A public philosophy is called for to support democratic values, in- cluding regime values, stewardship or trusteeship, conservatorship, public interests, fundamental rights, rule of law, citizenship, and constitutiveness (Green and Hubbell 1996). In a similar vein, Sembor and Leighninger (1996) argue that public adminis- tration should reconnect administrative ethics and public ethos through democratic

Re-Approaching the Politics/Administration Dichotomy and Its Impact on Administrative Ethics

P U B L I C I N T E G R I T Y SPRING 2005 • 119

civic institutions, working toward a shared sense of community on which ethics should be based.

Unfortunately, the ethical criticisms have been unable to reverse the trend to managerialism, displaying the ineffectiveness of normative ethics theory in a com- plex reality. Normative reasoning seems unable to appease the disputes between the NPM and traditional public administration, entrepreneurship and accountability, neutrality and responsiveness, and ultimately politics and administration. The deeper reason is that, unlike the earlier historical stages, there is far less consensus about the definition of the problem and the elements of a solution. Wamsley and Wolf admit that the conceptualizations provided by the Blacksburg Project are “either just plain unrealistic or altogether too idealistic” (1996, 11). A number of major works on administrative ethics have been published, but a thorough theoretical foun- dation has not yet taken shape.

In practice, reliance on the administrative side to solve the problems of ethics led to a shift from the high ground to the low. Whereas the 1980 Code of Ethics for Government Service included “loyalty to the highest moral principles . . . Uphold the Constitution, laws, and regulations,” the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 only per- tained to financial irregularities. The same narrow focus was evident in the practice of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, which defined “ethics” from the perspec- tives of two principles: executive branch employees should act impartially in carry- ing out their duties, and should not use their public office for private gain. (Other types of misconduct are not covered, such as sexual harassment, discrimination, unfair treatment, and substance abuse.)

In general, the three stages in the evolution of the dichotomy are summarized in Table 1.

The Future Starts Here

The Problems of Stage Three

Although the third stage witnessed popular anti-government emotions, anti-bureaucratic campaigns, and declining citizen trust, practitioners and scholars frequently ignore the root of the problems. This stage is marked by “the limitation orienta- tion,” of which the “main characteristic . . . is the emphasis by conservatives on expenditure and tax reduction” (Bartle 2001, 26). Under this orientation, while

TABLE 1

Evolution of the Dichotomy and Ethics

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3

Progressive era 1950s to Late 1970s to 1940s late 1970s to 1990s

Problem defined Administration Politics Administration Values promoted Neutrality Equity Efficiency

Efficiency Justice Effectiveness Economy

Ethical practice Praiseworthy Mixed Problematic

Kaifeng Yang and Marc Holzer

120 • P U B L I C I N T E G R I T Y SPRING 2005

citizens trust administrators more than politicians (Pew Research Center 1998), politicians use the term “bureaucrats” to convey the negative connotation of “bu- reaucracy as the problem” (Hall 2002), attributing the governing crisis only to the administrative side of the dichotomy. Reform initiatives are targeted more at ad- ministrators than at politicians. Administrators are called upon to be responsive to three standards simultaneously: political accountability, bureaucratic efficiency, and citizen responsiveness. But this may be unrealistic within the current institu- tional framework.

This orientation affected the interpretation of the dichotomy. On the surface, the focus of the field appeared to return to the first historical stage, emphasizing admin- istrative functions. Like the Progressive model in the first stage, the Reinvention model aimed to remove political constraints and other extraneous factors from pub- lic service. Underneath, however, the “return” followed a “spiral” route rather than developing as a simplistic clone of the first stage. In terms of political orientation, it was rather similar to the second stage. While the Progressive model was ignited by the spoils system and targeted at political institutions as the problem, recent initia- tives targeted bureaucracies as the problem. Smaller and narrower government func- tioning is the driving force of reform, with pressuring bureaucracy to perform as the dominant theme.

The Path of Change

Administrative ethics should be specified in practical language with consideration for the configuration of politics and administration. The relationship is illustrated in Figure 2 as a metaphorical “spring.” Ethics is shaped by the tension between politics and administration. When political forces become too strong, ethics may suffer, as happened under the spoils system. When administrative forces become too strong, ethics may also suffer, for accountability may be weakened, and government offi- cials may run out of control. The eventual equilibrium hinges on the political economy of the time. Ethics survives in a complicated relationship that is both material and rhetorical, and the use of the dichotomy is often politicized when politics and ad- ministration attribute problems to each other.

In general, the resurgence of citizenship and participation coincided with the evolution of the dichotomy and of ethics. Since Stage 2, the problem of interest- group liberalism has been increasing, with no major institutional innovations coun- tering the trend. In the 1960s, citizen involvement began to be recognized as an integral part of the administrative process. As traditional connections between citi- zens and political forms of expression, such as political parties, have decreased,

Figure 2. Politics, Administration, and Government Ethics

politics administration

Government ethics

Re-Approaching the Politics/Administration Dichotomy and Its Impact on Administrative Ethics

P U B L I C I N T E G R I T Y SPRING 2005 • 121

connections between citizens and administrators have become necessary and legiti- mized. Direct and representative forms of democracy together could merge as a “hybrid democracy.” Citizens’ roles will certainly grow, and “public” and “public values” will have to be reintroduced and emphasized. In re-examining the dichotomy, we face the task of redefining not only the meaning of administration, but also the meaning of other democratic institutions.

Ultimately the dichotomy and ethics hinge on the changing configuration of the state, party, market, civil society, and individual citizen, but they are influenced by movements such as globalization, privatization, democratization, and decentraliza- tion. In terms of globalization, the dichotomy is necessary for a global administra- tive theory. As the starting point for understanding administrative reform globally (Peters and Pierre 2001), the dichotomy is inevitable in ideas about knowledge transfer across countries. Meanwhile, a global perspective illustrates the richness and subtlety of the dichotomy in terms of typologies and measures (Pollitt and Bouckaert 2000; Sootla 2001). An emerging effort in ethics research seeks to identify “global ethics,” and an understanding of the politics/administration configuration across countries is necessary for viewing global ethics in context.

As to privatization, when business and civil society are more involved in deliver- ing public services, policy and management tend to be more separated, which raises concerns about democratic accountability and confusion about ethical standards. Cooperation and tension between non-governmental organizations and the state will become a parallel (or shadow) dimension of the dichotomy. The recent debacles of Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, and the New York Stock Exchange are vivid reminders of the ethical pitfalls in “running government like a business.” As to democratization, deliberative practice and citizen participation will also change the accountability system when integrated into administrative processes. Citizen participation seems to reduce the ordinary sense of politics, because people separate themselves and community involvement from dirty and messy politics (Kettering Foundation 1991). Decision-making will have to be de-politicized if public administration is to be made more acceptable and desirable to citizens. It is also necessary to change political institutions in order to embrace a democratic governing system open to meaningful and equal participation. As to decentralization, Cleveland (2000, 296) says that “the key . . . is mutually agreed standards on whatever is central to the system and thus cannot be left to individual choices or market outcomes.” It is the role of politics to establish such standards to free and to empower administrators.

In short, on the one hand, the bashing of government by politicians and the distrust of government by citizens both indicate the need for improved administrative perfor- mance and ethics. On the other hand, they seem to be constraining factors for adminis- trative ethics in that they signify a governing crisis of the society and a political culture of control rather than ethics. Government ethics is influenced by a tension between political and administrative forces that is constantly shaped by social developments such as globalization and reform measures like privatization. These social and institu- tional changes pose both opportunities and challenges to government ethics.

Lessons and Conclusions

The dichotomy between politics and administration is an idealized concept that fa- cilitates the development of an approach to the real world by creating a language, a

Kaifeng Yang and Marc Holzer

122 • P U B L I C I N T E G R I T Y SPRING 2005

platform, and a road map. As such, it is to be found in social constructions, the minds of managers, and the stories managers tell. It is relevant to ethics because it is the logic-in-use in officials’ everyday decisions (Selden, Brewer, and Brudney 1999), even though it is lamented by academics for its conceptual inadequacy. Linking the dichotomy with ethics provides important lessons for both academicians and practi- tioners making hard ethical choices.

Government Ethics Is Not Only About Administrators

The shift of focus in ethics, along with the evolution of the dichotomy, implies that ethics reform must be linked with overall political and administrative reform. In re- cent decades, most people have only attended to one side of the dichotomy (adminis- trative efficiency), viewing the governing crisis as a problem of bureaucracy and failing to offer a counter-offensive to the attacks on government by conservatives. However,

the crisis of confidence in government is more about the failure of electoral institutions than of bureaucracies (Meier 1997; Thayer 2000). Political corruption is usually found among political appointees rather than career admin- istrators (Frederickson 1997). The ethical

behavior of administrators relates to electoral institutions, citizen participation, “strong democracy,” and other values. In this broader view, administration is not the problem, it is part of the solution.

Improving ethics must be planned with a systems view. New governance with reinterpreted and relocated regime values can only be rebuilt systematically. History shows that democratic institutions and value orientations evolve within the constitu- tional framework. Wilsonian philosophy and the rise of the administrative state is an example. When administrators are called upon to change from rowing to steering, and from steering to serving and governing, comparable changes in electoral institu- tions are imperative. “When administration could no longer be separated from poli- tics one logical option for grounding an ethic of administration would be in the polity itself” (Cooper 1994, 19). The path to democratic governance is not in ex- panding political control, but in collaborating with citizens, the ultimate principals in a democratic process.

Rethinking the Bureaucratic Ethos

Although often referred to as administrative values, bureaucratic values are not ad- ministrative values. On the one hand, administrative values have had democratic components ever since the rise of the administrative state. On the other hand, bu- reaucratic values, induced by industrialization and modernization, are indispens- able not only for administrators, but also for legislators, elected officials, judges, and citizens. If technical rationality is evil, it is not only an administrative evil, but a political and societal evil.

The stereotype of “bad bureaucracy” should be rejected. First, bureaucratic val- ues do not equal hierarchy, chain of command, centralization, and the ethical “low road.” Efficiency is not a managerial principle (Simon 1946), and it can be attained

Ethics reform must be linked with

overall political and administrative

reform.

Re-Approaching the Politics/Administration Dichotomy and Its Impact on Administrative Ethics

P U B L I C I N T E G R I T Y SPRING 2005 • 123

in ways other than scientific management, such as empowerment, enrichment, par- ticipation, and self-management. Such alternatives are more related to the ethical “high roads.” Second, public bureaucracies have experienced extensive and positive changes due to the development of technology, business, and the market. Disregard- ing these changes, ethics research tends to avoid empirical and practical issues in favor of normative models (Dubnick and Justice 2002; Swain and Duke 2001). Third, bureaucratic values can be expanded to include democratic values such as “micro- representation.” The split in national mood and individual preferences, manifested in the 2000 presidential election, also justifies public administration’s role in the democratic process. Public administration can strengthen democracy through “micro- representation” by restoring a true “public” philosophy and an authentic citizenship.

A Renewed Mentality of Ethics

Are administrators capable of being ethical in terms of balancing colliding values? Many public leaders have succeeded in doing so. The key seems to lie in the social context and social problem-solving. At present it is more difficult than before to identify our problems and formulate solutions. The only promising way to deal with this situation would be to engage citizens in a communicative and demo- cratic process in which appropriate values can manifest themselves or be ascer- tained by all the stakeholders. The greatest challenge for administrators is to change their mentality.

Their insular mentality was made evident in two recent defining events: the di- sasters of 9/11 and the shuttle Columbia. In the first instance, the “intelligence com- munity” has been pilloried by congressional oversight committees for having missed a series of clues and red flags due to the arrogance of top management, a pervasive unwillingness to share information across organizational borders, and an unwar- ranted complacency. That is, elected representatives on the political end of the di- chotomy have questioned the extent to which the intelligence agencies were carrying out legislative directives to share and coordinate information in the interest of na- tional security. In the apparent absence of efficient operations, as evidenced by the failure to detect events leading to multiple, simultaneous hijackings and mass mur- ders by terrorists, the problem is one of ethics as a function of inefficiencies that could have been avoided by agency actions in the public interest rather than in agency interests. The failure of the Columbia can also be viewed as a function of an inef- ficient, ineffective organization that failed to carry out its politically defined mis- sion due to internal patterns of complacency—unethical actions to the extent that they compromised not only the mission but seven lives. In both disasters, the ethi- cal failures of the bureaucracy eroded the good will that the public had extended to the public service in the wake of the deaths of hundreds of public servants in the World Trade Center—fire and police rescue personnel and employees of dozens of agencies.

Administrators must free themselves from the “tyranny of the or”—the rational view that we cannot live with two seemingly contradictory forces or ideas at the same time (Collins and Porras 1994). In a complementary sense, they should liber- ate themselves with the “genius of the and”—the ability to embrace both extremes of a number of dimensions at the same time. Living with the constant tension be- tween politics, administration, and personal morality, public administrators must

Kaifeng Yang and Marc Holzer

124 • P U B L I C I N T E G R I T Y SPRING 2005

have the ability to handle the moral ambiguity and balance conflicting ethical codes (Barnard 1947; Waldo 1980).

The historical analysis presented in this article is an attempt to show that bal- ancing seemingly opposing values can only be achieved in an ongoing process of solving social problems. For example, the Progressives associated with the New York Bureau of Municipal Research balanced their quest for scientific manage- ment with efficient citizenship in their care for the urban poor and their determi- nation to solve urban problems. In today’s public arena, there may be too much reform rhetoric and too little actual care for the people. Public administrators must focus on solving social problems and be guided by the civic interest and a public philosophy. They should become institution builders in order to create and enrich democratic institutions that support participation, dialogue, and deliberation re- garding public issues.

Such a process will not only build a strong citizenship among citizens, but an ethical character among administrators. It can increase their moral sensitivity by embedding them in the pain experienced by citizens, sharpen their ethical judgment by forcing them to face the problems of the community, strengthen their moral cour- age with a sense of the shared values of the community, and reinforce their ethical motivation with a feeling of connectedness and support. As a result, citizen trust in government will be improved and a public ethos will be cultivated. In the process, administrators need to become educators and facilitators, both trustful and trust- worthy. In terms of the dichotomy between political and administration, such a process implies that they should neither ignore politics as a dirty word nor suc- cumb to political bosses. Rather, they should help to shape a new, constructive form of politics.

REFERENCES

Arnold, Peri E. 1995. “Reform’s Changing Role.” Public Administration Review 55, no. 5:407–417.

Barnard, Chester I. 1947. The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Bartle, John R. 2001. “Budgeting, Policy, and Administration: Patterns and Dynamics in the United States.” International Journal of Public Administration 24, no. 1:21–30.

Brownlow, Louis, Charles E. Merriam, and Luther Gulick. 1937. President’s Commit- tee on Administrative Management. Administrative Management in the Government of the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Carroll, James D. 1995. “The Rhetoric of Reform and Political Reality in the National Performance Review.” Public Administration Review 55, no. 3:302–312.

Cleveland, Frederick A. 1913. Organized Democracy: An Introduction to the Study of American Politics. New York: Longmans, Green.

Cleveland, Harlan. 2000. “The Future Is Uncentralized.” Public Administration Review 60, no. 4:293–297.

Cohen, Steven, and William B. Eimicke. 1998. “Trends in 20th Century United States Government Ethics.” Available at www.columbia.edu/~sc32/ethiclsur1.html.

Collins, James C., and Jerry I. Porras. 1994. Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies. New York: HarperBusiness.

Cooper, Terry L. 1994. “The Emergence of Administrative Ethics as a Field of Study in the United States.” In Handbook of Administrative Ethics, edited by Terry L. Cooper, pp. 3–30. New York: Marcel Dekker.

Dolan, Julie. 2000. “Influencing Policy at the Top of the Federal Bureaucracy: A

Re-Approaching the Politics/Administration Dichotomy and Its Impact on Administrative Ethics

P U B L I C I N T E G R I T Y SPRING 2005 • 125

Comparison of Career and Political Senior Executives.” Public Administration Review 60, no. 6:573–581.

Dubnick, Melvin J., and Jonathan B. Justice. 2002. “But Can You Trust Them to Be Ethical?” Paper presented at the 63rd annual conference of the American Society for Public Administration, Phoenix, Ariz., March 23.

Frederickson, H. George. 1976. “The Lineage of New Public Administration.” Administration & Society 8, no. 2:149–175.

———. 1996. “Comparing the Reinventing Government Movement with the New Public Administration.” Public Administration Review 56, no. 3:263–270.

———. 1997. The Spirit of Public Administration. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. ———. 1999. “Public Ethics and the New Managerialism.” Public Integrity 1, no.

3:265–278. Fry, Brian, and Lloyd Nigro. 1997. “Five Great Issues in the Profession of Public

Administration.” In Handbook of Public Administration, edited by Jack Rabin, W. Bartley Hildreth and Gerald J. Miller, pp. 1163–1221. New York: Marcel Dekker.

Garrison, Jim. 2000. Pragmatism and Public Administration. Administration & Society 32, no. 4:458–477.

Goodnow, Frank J. 1900. Policy and Administration: A Study in Government. New York: Macmillan.

Green, Richard T., and Larry Hubbell. 1996. “On Governance and Reinventing Government.” In Refounding Democratic Pubic Administration, edited by Gary L. Wamsley and James F. Wolf, pp. 38–67. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.

Hall, Thad E. 2002. “Live Bureaucrats and Dead Public Servants: How People in Government Are Discussed on the Floor of the House.” Public Administration Review 62, no. 2:242–251.

Kaufman, Herbert. 2001. “Major Players: Bureaucracies in American Government.” Public Administration Review 61, no. 1:18–42.

Kettering Foundation. 1991. Citizens and Politics: A View from Main Street America. Dayton, OH: The Foundation.

Klingner, Donald E., John Nalbandian, and Barbara S. Romzek. 2002. “Politics, Administration, and Markets.” American Review of Public Administration 32, no. 2:117–144.

Lee, Eliza Wing-Yee. 1995. “Political Science, Public Administration, and the Rise of the American Administrative State.” Public Administration Review 55, no. 6:538–546.

Lynn, Lawrence E. 2001. “The Myth of the Bureaucratic Paradigm: What Traditional Public Administration Really Stood For.” Public Administration Review 61, no. 2:144–161.

Martin, Daniel W. 1988. “The Fading Legacy of Woodrow Wilson.” Public Administra- tion Review 48, no. 2:631–636.

Meier, Kenneth J. 1997. “Bureaucracy and Democracy: The Case for More Bureau- cracy and Less Democracy.” Public Administration Review 57, no. 3:193–199.

Moe, Ronald C. 1994. “The ‘Reinventing Government’ Exercise: Misinterpreting the Problem, Misjudging the Consequences. “Public Administration Review 54, no. 2:111–122.

Montjoy, Robert S., and Douglas J. Watson. 1995. “A Case for Reinterpreted Di- chotomy of Politics and Administration as a Professional Standard in Council- manager Government.” Public Administration Review 55, no. 3:231–239.

Nathan, Richard P. 1995. “Reinventing Government: What Does It Mean?” Public Administration Review 55, no. 2:213–215.

OALDCE. 1994. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English. 4th ed. Oxford University.

Osborne, David, and Ted Gaebler. 1992. Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit Is Transforming the Public Sector. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

Kaifeng Yang and Marc Holzer

126 • P U B L I C I N T E G R I T Y SPRING 2005

Peters, B. Guy, and Jon Pierre. 2001. Politicians, Bureaucrats and Administrative Reform. New York: Routledge.

Pew Research Center. 1998. “Deconstructing Distrust: How Americans View Govern- ment.” Available at http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=95/.

Pollitt, Christopher, and Geert Bouckaert. 2000. Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.

Roberts, Alasdair. 1994. “Demonstrating Neutrality: The Rockefeller Philanthropies.” Public Administration Review 54, no. 3:221–228.

Rohr, John A. 1978. Ethics for Bureaucrats: An Essay on Law and Values. New York: Marcel Dekker.

———. 2000. “Regime Values.” In Defining Public Administration, edited by J. M. Shafritz, pp. 420–421. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.

Rosenbloom, David H. 1993. “Editorial: Have an Administrative Rx? Don’t Forget the Pol.” Public Administration Review, 53, no. 6:503–507.

Rutgers, Mark R. 2001. “Splitting the Universe: On the Relevance of Dichotomies for the Study of Public Administration. Administration & Society 33, no. 1:3–20.

Schachter, Hindy L. 1995. Reinventing Government or Reinventing Ourselves: Two Models for Improving Government Performance.” Public Administration Review 55, no. 6:530–537.

Selden, Sally C., Gene A. Brewer, and Jeffrey L. Brudney. 1999. “Reconciling Competing Values in Public Administration.” Administration & Society 31, no. 2:171–204.

Sembor, Edward, and Matthew E. Leighninger. 1996. “Rediscovering the Public.” In Ethical Dilemmas in Public Administration, edited by Lynn Pasquerella, Alfred G. Killilea, and Michael Vocino, pp. 161–177. Westport, Conn.: Praeger.

Simon, Herbert A. 1946. “The Proverbs of Administration.” Public Administration Review 6:53–67.

Skok, James E. 1995. “Policy Issue Networks and the Public Policy Cycle: A Struc- tural-Functional Framework for Public Administration.” Public Administration Review 55, no. 4:325–332.

Sootla, Georg. 2001. “Dimensions of Analysis of Politico–Administrative Dichotomy in the Core Executive.” Paper presented at the 9th annual conference of the Network of Institutes and Schools of Public Administration in Central and Eastern Europe, Riga, Latvia, May 10–13.

Spicer, Michael W. 2002. “Public Administration and the History of Ideas.” Paper presented at the 63rd annual conference of the American Society of Public Admin- istration, Phoenix, Ariz.

Stivers, Camilla. 1995. “Settlement Women and Bureau Men: Constructing a Usable Past for Public Administration.” Public Administration Review 55, no. 6: 522–529.

Svara, James H. 1999. “Complementarity of Politics and Administration as a Legitimate Alternative to the Dichotomy Model.” Administration & Society 30, no. 6:676–705.

———. 2001. “The Myth of the Dichotomy: Complementarity of Politics and Administration in the Past and Future of Public Administration.” Public Administra- tion Review 61, no. 2:176–183.

Swain, John W., and Matthew L. Duke. 2001. “Recommendations for Research on Ethics in Public Policy from a Public Administration Perspective.” International Journal of Public Administration 24, no. 1:125–136.

Thayer, Frederick C. 2000. “Political Corruption as the Result of Electoral Competi- tion, Not Character Weakness.” Public Integrity 2, no. 1:45–59.

Uveges, Joseph A., and Lawrence F. Keller. 1997. “One Hundred Years of American Public Administration and Counting.” In Handbook of Public Administration, edited by Jack Rabin, W. Bartley Hildreth and Gerald J. Miller, pp. 1–47. New York: Marcel Dekker.

Volcker, Paul A. 1988. Public Service: The Quiet Crisis. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.

Re-Approaching the Politics/Administration Dichotomy and Its Impact on Administrative Ethics

P U B L I C I N T E G R I T Y SPRING 2005 • 127

Waldo, Dwight. 1948. The Administrative State. New York: Ronald Press. ———. 1980. The Enterprise of Public Administration: A Summary View. Novato,

Calif.: Chandler & Sharp. Wamsley, Gary L., and James F. Wolf, eds. 1996. Refounding Democratic Public

Administration: Modern Paradoxes, Postmodern Challenges. Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage.

Wamsley, Gary L., Robert N. Bacher, Charles T. Goodsell, Philip S. Kronenberg, John A. Rohr, Camilla Stivers, Orion F. White, and James F. Wolf. 1990. Refounding Public Administration. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

White, Leonard D. 1955. Introduction to the Study of Public Administration. New York: Macmillan.

Willoughby, William F. 1927. Principles of Public Administration. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Wilson, Woodrow. 1887. “The Study of Administration.” Political Science Quarterly 2, no. 2:197–222.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Kaifeng Yang is an assistant professor of public administration at the Askew School of Public Administration and Policy, Florida State University. He has a Ph.D. in business administration from Renmin University in China and a Ph.D. in public administration from Rutgers University–Newark. His research interests include citizen participation, performance measurement, and strategic management. He has published in various schol- arly journals.

Marc Holzer is professor and director of the Graduate Department of Public Administra- tion at Rutgers–Newark, where he is also the director of the National Center for Public Productivity. He is editor-in-chief of Public Productivity and Performance Review, Pub- lic Voice, and Chinese Public Administration Review. He has widely published in such areas as public productivity, performance measurement, and public administration theory and development.