Politics-Administration Dichotomy Scope and Nature

Politics as the Struggle for Power Robert Dahl is associated with this.
All political activities involve power.
Power is the necessary tool required to exert influence and control
Even though politics invariably involves the use of power and influence, it does not necessarily mean that all power and influence relationships could be described as political.
The relationship between husband and wife, parents and children, teachers and students etc. involves power but are obvious not political.<br>

Politics as who gets what, when and how Harold Lasswell defines politics as who gets what, when and how
Resources are own by the state
Politics involves the distribution of resources of a state to its citizens
Politicians determine how the resources are distributed, when they are distributed and who what a particular resource is given to
But according to critics like Nnoli, there is nothing political about the distribution of resources
Whenever two or more people gather, the question of who gets what is likely to come up especially when the gathering is of the same purpose.<br>

Politics as the Authoritative Allocation of Values Politics as the Authoritative Allocation of Values (David Easton).
Politicians have power, control and influence based on their office
The office gives them the mandate to allocate (distribute) values (resources) for the citizens of the state
However distribution of values and resources alone can not be enough to paint the true picture of politics<br>

Politics as State Power All leaders exercise certain powers as a result of their position or office
The difference between a religious leader and the president is the kind of power they have and can exercise
The president has state power
It is only politicians(the president, legislature) that have state power
Politics however is concern with the possession and exercise of state power
Politics can therefore be properly defined as All those activities directly or indirectly associated with the seizure of state power, the consolidation of state power and the use of state power<br>

Administration Administration generally refers to the day-to-day management of activities to achieve a goal.
Administration is to care for or to look after people, to manage affairs
Therefore administration simply means management of affairs.
It involves such functions as planning, organizing, directing, staffing, coordinating, reporting and budgeting (PODSCORB), in organizations.<br>

Politics-administration dichotomy An organization can be referred to as a system of roles graded by authority.
Organization is a social unit of people that is structured and managed to meet a need or to pursue a collective goal
All organizations need policy makers (politicians) and implementers (administrators)
Policy is the political determinant of what government decides to do or not to do
Administration is the implementation of the policies decided on by government (politicians)
Administration is the channel through which public policy is realized
Should policy-making be seen as a separate activity from administration?<br>

Differences between politics and administration: Politics is about the use of state power or the science of governing whereas administration is the science and art of actualizing what government wants to do.
Politicians determine the ends (what ought to be done) whilst administrators devise the means (how to do it)
Hierarchically, politicians occupy the realm of authority and are constitutionally responsible for decision making whilst the administrator serves only in an advisory capacity.
Politics is about the actions of elected representatives and their electorates whereas administration is about the activities of professionals
Administration stresses technical factors but politics stresses values.
Politics is an area of change and unpredictability but administration is an area of stability and routine.
In dealing with clientele, politics seeks the interests of supporters whilst administration thrives on impartiality of rule and processes
Administrators are appointed on the basis of qualification and examination whilst political influence goes into the appointment of politicians.
Administrators are protected and restricted by a code of conventions, unlike politicians.
Administrators do not go to parliament for their stewardship but politicians do.<br>

The Orthodox view The big debate is between the orthodox view of politics-administration dichotomy and the modified view of politics-administration dichotomy
To the orthodox scholars, policy-making and administration should remain two separate activities independent of each other
Politicians decide what should be done through public-policy making while bureaucrats carry out the decisions of the politicians
The model represents a superior-subordinate relationship
Politicians wield more powers than the administrator
Politics determine goals while administration ensures that those goals are met
Administration is to remain neutral politically therefore they cannot engage in public policy-making<br>

Cont. Administrators rely on technical competence execute the decisions of politicians
They are protected against political pressures as the ac discretionary based on their technical competence
Two main scholars are known to the ‘engineers’ behind the orthodox school of politics and administration dichotomy.
They are Woodrow Wilson and Frank Goodnow
Woodrow Wilson in one of his books for instance, wrote “The field of administration is a field of business. It is removed from the hurry and strife of politics”
Administration lies outside the spheres of politics
Administrative questions are not political questions
Even though politicians wield more powers than administrators, the should be allowed to manipulate administrators
This can be done by strictly separating the two activities.<br>

The Modified Politics-Administration Dichotomy It is becoming increasing difficult to draw a line between policy making and administration.
It would therefore be folly to say that administrative officers should have absolutely no hand in the formulation of policy(john Pfiffer).
The orthodox view prohibits for instance local government officials from policy side of government even though they always do(Montjoy & Watson).
In practice administrators can participate in the policy process, exercise as much discretion as will be allowed and still hold a clear line against particularistic requests directed to them or to members of their staff.<br>

CONT. In general, it is fair to conclude that the modified dichotomy model permits public administrators to provide policy leadership to elected officials
But elected officials should leave implementation and general management questions to professional administrators
They constructed a version of the dichotomy that endorsed the involvement of administrators in policy making but prohibited council members from interfering in the management of the government.
They did this by developing a distinction between politics and administration on the one hand, and between policy and administration on the other.<br>

The Partnership Model of the Dichotomy This model focuses on the interconnectedness between politics (however defined) and administration.
It holds that administrators can and often do have great impact on policy making and that elected officials can and often do have great impact on administration.
While the modified dichotomy model sanctions administrators venturing into policy making, the partnership model not only sanctions that as well but also sanctions elected officials venturing into administration by being involved in implementing and executing laws and policy.<br>

Cont. Goodnow, perhaps moving from what he believed should ideally occur, noted that in practice actual political necessity requires that there shall be harmony between the expression and execution of the state will.
To him this harmony can be obtained by sacrificing the independence of either politics or administration. Later he indicated that while the function of politics has to do primarily with the expression of the state will, it has to do secondarily with the execution of that will.
This indicates that the separation between the two must somehow be bridged, even if the independence of one or the other is sacrificed.
e later concluded that the executive function must of necessity be subordinated to the function of politics. Goodnow stopped short of arguing for a full partnership, because he believed that political control of administration must be mediated.
For example, the general conduct, but not concrete actions of those who exercise administrative functions should be subject to control.<br>

Complementarity of Politics & Administration Svara is one of the scholars who emphasize the complementarity of politics and administration.
This complementarity stresses interdependency, reciprocal influence, extensive interaction between elected officials and administrators, along with recognition of the need for distinct roles and political supremacy.
A basic principle of this model stresses that elected officials and public administrators join together in pursuit of sound governance.
Although other parts of Svara's definition also emphasize components of the modified dichotomy model, his complementarity model most heavily emphasizes the partnership between politics and administration.
He argues that those who study the relationship of elected and appointed officials in a democracy should examine the impact each has on the other.
This notion of complementarity is in line with the systems model, which holds that politics and administration are seen as individual subsystems within the larger political system.
Implying both have roles to play in the political system, which are complementary.<br>