James H.

Svara
Arizona State University

Junior–Senior Beyond Dichotomy: Dwight Waldo and the

Exchange: The
Legacy of Intertwined Politics–Administration Relationship
Dwight Waldo
and The
Administrative
State

James H. Svara is a professor in the
School of Public Affairs and director
of the Center for Urban Innovation at
Arizona State University.
E-mail: james.svara@asu.edu
Dwight Waldo’s conception of the politics–administration dichotomy and reconceptualize and reappreciate
question might be better understood as a the dichotomy itself.” His analysis makes clear
“relationship” that contains elements of separation and Waldo’s continual fascination with the
intermixture rather than a “dichotomy,” according complexities of political–administrative relations
to this author- commentator.To suggest that Waldo and his growing ambivalence on the subject.
came to support the dichotomy presumes agreement Overeem concludes that Waldo was neither a
about the meaning of the concept that is missing in champion nor an opponent of the dichotomy. ftis
Waldo’s writings and in the public administration assessment is striking, however, only in contrast to
literature. an exaggerated prominence that Overeem and
others assign to Waldo as a critic of the politics–

T
he politics–administration dichotomy administration dichotomy. fte tour through Waldo’s
“de- bate” must be the most slippery writing and especially the presentation of
intellectual issue in public adminis- ideas from his unpublished book
tration. To some, dichotomy are fascinating, but they do not
connotes complete separation, succeed in setting aside the
fte politics–administration
and its opposite—which does con- tinuing problems with
not have a generally agreed dichotomy “debate” must be promot- ing the politics–
upon label—entails total the most slippery intellectual administration dichotomy.
intermixture. Others accept issue in public administration.
partial versions but categorize To add more twists and turns to
them differently. To some, any the complex debate, I shall
distinction be- argue
tween politics and administration is a “dichotomy,” Overeem’s concerns than
whereas to others, differentiation is the basis for Waldo’s. He wishes to
inter- action. A subtheme in the larger discussion is “reconsider Waldo’s
the debate over where major thinkers and scholars reputation as a heterodox
have stood on the issue of what a dichotomy is. critic of the politics–
Although James Fesler offered the opinion half a administration
century ago that “one can not now make a useful 46 Public Administration Review • January | February 2008
career of harass- ing the ghosts of Wilson,
Goodnow, and Willoughby” (1957, 139), the
harassment continues as contributors are claimed by
one side or the other, and the work of Waldo is now
subject to scrutiny as well. His extensive views on
the relationship of politics and administra- tion are
now woven into the debate.

It is fitting that Waldo’s work should be the subject

of the careful and detailed analysis by Patrick
Overeem on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of
the publi- cation of The Administrative State. fte
focus on finding the basis for preserving a
dichotomy in the relationship between politics and
administration, how- ever, seems to reflect more
three points and add a fourth section with my own interpretation of the above the debate.
politics–administration quan- dary. First, Waldo was not a confirmed or clear-
cut critic of dichotomy because he attached qualifications to his early Waldo and Political–Administrative Relations
challenges. Second, the idea of dichotomy is still illusive in both Waldo’s First, Waldo clearly was a critic of orthodoxy
early writing, when the term “dichotomy” was not used often, and in his later (Bertelli and Lynn 2006), and a strict separation of
work, when the term was attached to a number of broader issues. ftird, Waldo politics and administration was part of that model of
added to later confusion in the discussion of the relationship of politics and public ad- ministration in Waldo’s view. Still, there
administration by contributing to a narrow view of what early scholars had are signs even in The Administrative State that he
said about the subject. In the final section, I consider where we go from here was not a staunch critic of dichotomy or that he
and offer another attempt to categorize this complex rela- tionship that rises wanted to eliminate it
completely. He observed that the “rise of I only reported what had been done” (Brown and Stillman 1986, 35). He also
heterodoxy” in the 1930s had contributed to a sig- naled that there could be other bases for distinguish- ing between politics
“newer theory” that disagreed “not with politics– and administration. Shifting to a more favorable perspective regarding other
administration itself; only with the spirit of rigid distinc- tions, as Overeem has described, was not such a big move on his part.3
separatism” (1948, 121). He rejected a sharp
separation of “politics–administration, at least in the A second issue in assessing Waldo’s contribution to the dichotomy debate is
you-go-your-way-and-I’ll-go-mine form” (1948, determining what he was criticiz- ing or later supporting and the relationship of
122). Implicitly, some other form or a partial these posi- tions to the politics–administration dichotomy. Waldo and other scholars
version of the distinction between politics and rarely used the term “dichotomy”
administration might have been acceptable.1 After
the governmental change and administrative
expansion that occurred during the Great
Depression and World War II, Waldo did not see as
much need to protect a “mature” public
administration from “the germs of politics.” ftis
suggests that Waldo supported the insulation of
administrators from politics, although he conceded
that the need for it had diminished.2

In the policy dimension of the relationship, Waldo

(1948, 121) summarized the literature from 1930
onward regarding administrative contributions to
policy as part of the rise of heterodoxy, but he
seemed rather cautious in suggesting that public
administration could “think about invading the field
of politics, the field of policy determination.” Many
scholars had already identified these contributions to
policy, includ- ing Friedrich, who argued that
“politics and adminis- tration play a continuous role
in both formation and execution [of policy]” (1940,
6). Indeed, Morstein Marx offered assurance that the
legislature has not been reduced to the “function of a
dignified ornament” (1946, 107) in the policy
process by the expanded contribution of
administration. Waldo summarized similar views,
but he does not appear to have accepted the same
level of policy involvement by administrators
described by other scholars, such as Appleby
(1949).

In sum, Waldo was certainly part of the new

approach to thinking about the relationship of
politics and administration in the governmental
process and a critic of a dichotomous division, but
he was hardly a leading critic. Sayre (1958) did not
include Waldo among the leaders of the assault on
the politics– administration dichotomy, although he
noted his attack on scientific management. Waldo
himself declined to be included in the group that
“demolished” the di- chotomy. He felt that
demolition “was done basically by other people, and
through the end of the division of decision and execution. He would arrive
1940s (Svara 1999). at the position that “we do, commonsen- sically,
In refer- ring to the decide and execute, set policy and administer”
relationship between (Brown and Stillman 1986, 153). ftat observation
elected officials and was made, however, in reference to the issue of
administrators in The separation of powers, as was his original discussion
Administrative State, of the topic in The Administrative State. He stated
Waldo (1948) used the unequivocally that “the separation of powers is
politics– there—prominently and for our purposes,
administration permanently” (Brown and Stillman 1986, 153). He
“formula” (115, 121, observed, however, that “politics–administration” as
208), “distinction” it applies to the separa- tion of powers “tells us
(116), “notion” (115, nothing at all about the organs to which these
123), “axiom” (110), simply “politics– functions should be assigned, or the desir- able
administration” relationships among these organs” (1948, 115).
alone (75, 207), and ftere is no indication that he abandoned this view.
“dichotomy” (114,
123, 205).4 Whereas Waldo continued to use many terms to refer to the
dichotomy or effort to describe and order the relationship:
distinction implies “politics– administration formula, perspective,
separation, the other approach, dichotomy—pick your own noun” (Brown
terms suggest ways to and Stillman 1986, 153). In the quotations provided
allocate, balance, or by Overeem from the 1999 version of the
explain the respective unpublished book, Waldo also uses the term
spheres or types of “formula” or “formulation,” as well as “dichotomy.”
officials. ftere was not He seems to be looking for the basis for
a clearly articulated differentiation. At the highest level of ab- straction,
concept with agreed- dichotomy is the enduring “perception of a
upon meaning through distinction between politics and administration,” but
the late 1940s.5 even this distinction can be illusive. As Overeem
reports, Waldo contrasted the clear difference
Waldo would use the between a meeting of county Democratic Party
term “dichotomy” more leaders and the machinery in the Government
in the 1950s to refer to Printing Office, but he noted that “beyond a point,
the decision–execution and over a large area, the dichotomy is blurred or
distinction, and later he invisible.”6 ftis approach suggests two circles that
used this and other largely but do not completely overlap.
terms to refer to other
aspects of the ftus, the approach that Waldo takes to the idea of
relationship between dichotomy and his own support or rejection
politics and ad- depends on which kind of distinction he is making.
ministration. His views His defini- tion of dichotomy is unclear, and he
shifted to some extent seems more interested in the issue of “politics–
on the rejection of the administration”
The Legacy of Dwight Waldo 47
Thank you for using www.freepdfconvert.com service!

Only two pages are converted. Please Sign Up to convert all pages.

https://www.freepdfconvert.com/membership