Politics and administration in Goodnow's public administration theory

5

There are several notions that come to mind when examining administration under the influence of politics. Now that the United States has a new president, President Trump, there are more people looking at how politics can have an effect on public management, especially concerning budgets and application of budget to government programs. Back in the early 1900’s, writers like Frank Johnson Goodnow explored how complexity of government could lead to changes in public administration. For example, with implementation of laws from court rulings, this could impact how the American Federal Government allotted money for specific services (Goodnow, 1914). However, as times changed and Public Administration became an academic field, more and more scholars have interpreted and analyzed the effects of politics in administration and offered a more comprehensive consider what can happen with administration under the influence of politics. This essay aims to explore the work of scholars in the field of Public Administration and cover the background of thoughts on politics and administration how these beliefs are carried over to modern times. Goodnow defined politics in his book as having to “do with policies or expressions of the state will. Administration has to do with the execution of these policies” (Goodnow, 1914, p. 18). This is important to note because although people of the time stated politics would have adverse effects on administration, administration according to the definition is the execution of policies designated within politics. Therefore, administration, public administration, cannot exist without policies brought on through politics. While there can be the argument that complexities in government and politics can bring about issues in administration, politics are an essential aspect to public administration and cannot be removed from the equation. That being said, there is a reason why people back then suggested politics could bring problems to administration. As governments weaken over time and become unstable, policies become problematic and thus administration can be negatively affected. Goodnow discusses this regarding centralized administration. “Centralized administration combined with a weak party system, while making provision for the responsible leader in its governmental organization, prevents his development in the party by the form which it gives to its part organization” (Goodnow, 1914, p. 256). The U.S. Federal Government is a centralized administration that deploys policy that must be carried out in state and local agencies. However, when there exists a weak party system like two-party system experienced in the United States currently, there are problems in relation to how effective implementation of policies can be. For example, Former President Barack Obama had difficulty in implementing many changes he had wanted during his time as president. “On the one hand, the separation of powers in the presidential system, particularly in the context of relatively weak parties in the United States, limits what presidents can do” (Orvis & Drogus, 2015, p. 277). When he attempted to change healthcare in the United States, he was met with much resistance. The same can be said of President Trump and his attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Imagining this taken down the ladder to other areas of government and leaders within these areas, it is not hard to imagine how difficult it can be to accomplish anything administratively amidst a turbulent political atmosphere. With all this chaos going on in politics and administration, there grew a need to explore it and analyze it. That is why the academic field of Public Administration grew. There are several sub-fields that exist within the field of public administration. Scholars proposed models using what are called: the five ‘pillars’. They consist of: 1. Organizational theory in public administration 2. Policy analysis 3. Human resource management 4. Ethics in public administration 5. Public budgeting (Riccucci, 2010). These core branches act as a means of understanding decision making and the structure of both public service and governmental entities. Some academic contributions to theory within Public Administration involves decision-making models like Niskanen’s budget-maximizing rational choice variation. This model posited that rational bureaucrats universally, will aim to augment budgets of their respective units. Meaning they will seek to enhance their stature, allowing for contribution to state growth as well as increases in public spending. “In addition, they are maximizing (as opposed to optimizing) their bureau budgets even based on their “rational” computation. Their motive of maximizing, thus, is quite rational rather than political or boundedly rational” (Ryu, 2015, p. 144). While some critique his universalist approach due to varying motivations of officials, it stands as a means of theoretical exploration within Public Administration. Another model, Dunleavy’s bureau-shaping model, serves as a modification to Niskanen’s and posits that maximization of budget only happens when rational bureaucrats spend on their own interest groups and agency’s operations (Ryu, 2015). This means those able to generate a ‘flowback’ of benefits going towards senior officials, could gain more budgetary attention. This can be seen in the current United States government in terms of the SNAP program. While the SNAP program is beneficial to millions of Americans, because it does not benefit bureaucrats and their goals, it remains underfunded and often sees budget cuts. Military spending however, remains high and shows how unless something furthers the goals or benefits a bureaucrat, more than likely it will receive less attention versus something that does. If one looks towards the Bible, one remembers that there is the law of God and the law of man. The law of God as seen in 2 Corinthians 9:12, states: “For the ministry of this service is not only fully supplying the needs of the saints, but is also overflowing through many thanksgivings to God” (Myers, 2010, p. 135). This line shows that the law of God takes into account other things other than satisfying the needs of the saints. However, the law of man does the opposite as it often tends to satisfy only the needs of some and often disregards the needs of the many. Studying under Public Administration shows students the differences between the law of God and the law of man and how these differences go about bringing turmoil and injustice in modern society. Aside from scholars concerning budgeting motives, there are others that contribute to Public Administration as an academic field. One such person is Mary Parker Follett. A pioneer in her own right, she was a management theorist that helped people understand lateral processes in hierarchical organizations, the concept of ‘authority of expertise’, and the significance of informal processes in organizations (Graham & Follett, 2003). Thanks to her contributions, current scholars have a foundation of organizational theory to base their explorations into Public Administration. “She enumerates four principles of coordination: 1. Co-ordination as reciprocal relating of all the factors in a situation. 2. Co-ordination by direct contact of the responsible people concerned. 3. Co-ordination in the early stages. 4. Co-ordination as a continuing process” (Graham & Follett, 2003, p. 263). Another scholar is Rosemary O-Leary who authored or edited twelve books and over one hundred and twenty-five articles as well as book chapters covering public management. Her literary contributions provide current students information on past and existing theory related to public management and Public Administration. As president of the Public Management Research Association, she continues to be a leader in the Public Administration field (Bingham & O\\\'Leary, 2015). Rosemary although has not created a theoretical framework like the previous scholar, has contributed greatly due to her desire to collect and present relevant information under the academic field of Public Administration. The last notable scholar is Norma M. Riccucci. She in her book, Public Administration: Traditions of Inquiry and Philosophies of Knowledge, discusses Public Administration and how it evolved from its beginnings into a movement that has shaped the way government and organizations are examined. “The movement public management from a theoretical perspective can partly be viewed as a repudiation of normative techniques in public administration, perhaps in response to the new public administration” (Riccucci, 2010, p. 37). She is a known scholar in Public Administration and focuses on specific issues of public management and affirmative action. She is most known for literature covering diversity management in government employment. Riccucci has contributed to the understanding of diversity within Public Administration and promoted a further understanding of the current climate of Public Administration within the United States. In conclusion, politics and administration are connected. They do not exist without the other. However, just because they are connected does not mean politics does not have an adverse effect on administration. It does, especially when weak party systems are in place. That is why the academic field of Public Administration exists to help those aiming to understand these issues can do so. Many scholars contributed to Public Administration and continue to help those looking to explore the field by adding new concepts and theories and exploring established frameworks.