Everyday Politics in Public Administration

Abstract

The politics-administration dichotomy was long ago dismissed as either a descriptive or (except for a few notable holdouts) prescriptive account of what the role of public administration should be. Yet the dichotomy endures in practice and in habit of mind, embedded in institutional traditions and in the legal code as well. Political involvement-coalition formation, symbol manipulation, constituency mobilization-by public administrators is an everyday occurrence. Inside and outside the agency are struggles over resource distribution, professional norms and proper procedures, or the level of threat/reassurance that should be attached to various events, groups, or individuals. Political engagement remains problematic for public administrators, however. If political involvement is permitted, someone will have to rethink the meaning of Progressivism, neutral competence, professionalism, and an expert-based civil service. More daunting still, compelling critiques of representative democracy have placed electoral institutions on the table for discussion as well. A hopeful future for public administration is grounded in a renewed assertion of the viability and meaningfulness of the public interest as a standard against which claims offered in the public conversation may be judged. A healthy public discourse preserves and creates an authentic polls that is able to focus on community aims and purposes, hence clarifying public administration's legitimate role in governance.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 13 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.