"What now, Goodnow?"

The concept of a policy-administration dichotomy has long existed in the political history of the United States. Basically, this means that – for many people – there has been a desire to separate policy-making from administrative policy application (Kettl, Fesler 6). Many political scientists and theorists suggest that this separation of power will protect the political minority, since the bureaucratic implementation of policy would be less controlled by the political party in power. During the era of “Political Machines” in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, there was no policy-administration dichotomy, considering that the vastly powerful political parties had control over the implementation of policy, as well as publication of news. The establishment of a more independent bureaucracy has taken a considerable amount of power away from policy makers. Administrators that carry out public policy have greater autonomy to enact policy as they see fit. This can prove to be effective and efficient while still more gradual and regulated than if the policy was forcefully enacted by a majority political party. On the downside to a policy-administration dichotomy, bureaucrats tend to hold a large amount of governmental power, and are often quite autonomous and difficult to control. If a bureaucratic agency in charge of enacting a particular policy does not approve of the policy, the agency could potentially enact the policy slowly, in favorable fractions, or not at all.

Political scientist Frank J. Goodnow asserts that, in a popular government, the administrative segment of government must be subordinate to the control of the policy-making segment in order to prevent political paralysis. Goodnow explains the policy-administration dichotomy as “two distinct functions of government”. Politics are the expressions of popular will through policy-making, while administration deals with the execution of the policies (Shafritz 28). In a well-functioning government, powers cannot be totally separated. Policy must be carried out efficiently by administrative agencies to effectively execute state will.

While Goodnow hesitates to entitle the administrative segment of government with very much autonomy, past president Woodrow Wilson suggests that a more independent administrative body is necessary for effective government. While the elected officials of government enact broad policy, it is the job of the administrative bureaucrats to enact the policy by what means is appropriate. Wilson describes public administration as “detailed and systematic execution of public law” (Shafritz 23). The specific applications of laws are the jobs of administration. Making of the laws that direct policy is the job of legislators. Wilson focuses on the academic study of how administration can be made more efficient, fair, and Constitutional. Wilson does acknowledge that such an autonomous bureaucracy can only exist if it is truly businesslike, unbiased, and professional when it comes to implementing policy. He states that this can be achieved by holding heads of administrative agencies accountable for actions taken by their agencies.

While Wilson’s opinion on the policy-administration dichotomy relies heavily on the ethics and self-control of administrators, Goodnow seems to have a more realistic approach to the issue. Without adequate oversight and control over administration, it is possible – if not probable – that administrators will manipulate public policy through its implementation as they see fit. It is not an inherently bad thing for the political party in power to be able to have significant control over the implementation of policy. Constitutional civil rights are in place to prevent the political majority from tyrannizing the minority. To appease the will of the minority by hindering the implementation of policy may block effective policies from benefitting society.




Works Cited

Kettl, Donald F. and James W. Fesler. 2009. The Politics of the Administrative Process, 4th edition. Washington DC: CQ Press.

Shafritz, Jay M., Albert C. Hyde, and Sandra J. Parkes. 2008. Classics of Public Administration. 6th edition. Wadsworth Publishing.