User:Liftingmermaid22/sandbox

Ariel Bibliography

"The Scope and Characteristics of Public Administration" (pp. 3-20) From:Foundations of Public Administration Peter Harris Hong Kong University Press (April 1990)

"Why Public Administration Should Take Deliberative Democracy Seriously" (pp. 159-166) From:The Future of Public Administration around the World Tina Nabatchi Georgetown University Press (January 2011)

Paradigms of Public Administration Nicholas Henry Public Administration Review, Vol. 35, No. 4 (Jul. - Aug., 1975), pp. 378-386

The Politics-Administration Dichotomy Model as Aberration James H. Svara Public Administration Review Vol. 58, No. 1 (Jan. - Feb., 1998), pp. 51-58 Published by: Wiley

Dichotomy and Duality: Reconceptualizing the Relationship between Policy and Administration in Council-Manager Cities James H. Svara Public Administration Review Vol. 45, No. 1 (Jan. - Feb., 1985), pp. 221-232 Published by: Wiley

Project Proposal Input: Questions: 1.	Yes and no. It links to Public Administration and Woodrow Wilson. 2.	It definitely needs more links associated with other public admin figures, the relation they have to certain political figures or institutions and it could have links to examples of the dichotomy maybe media relations or even historical events.

Article evaluation: The article itself is a brief intro into the dichotomy of Public Administration. It brings to light the history of administration to the time of Woodrow Wilson’s office, the advantages of having a solid public administration foundation and its importance to a substantially solid political system, and it addresses the criticisms revolving around the definition of the dichotomy.

As we all know with any analysis, there is more to a subject than can be described in five subtopics. The article starts by stating that “The Politics-Administration Dichotomy is a theory that constructs the boundaries of public administration and asserts the normative relationship between elected officials and administrators in a democratic society”. A definition that is far too general and weak. Although, the only high profile elected official it points to further in the article is Woodrow Wilson. It fails to address any modern or even other historical figures that can set as an example to the dichotomy. There are many other figures that could at least show to have addressed the dichotomy of PA. For instance if the dichotomy theory is a relationship between officials and administrators, it should address modern examples such as the relationship between the current president and his nominated/appointed house administrators.

Something else the article fails to address is the importance, based on history, of public administration in the political structure. For instance, Montesquieu stated that “a society is essentially defined by its political regime (Harris, “The Scope and Characteristics of Public Administration”).” Montesquieu also discussed that a form of government is can be influenced by a variety of factors – customs, psychology, and climate (Harris).

As I said at the beginning, the article is a brief, or rather, intro into the model of public administration. It addresses the necessary material needed to see where public administration came from but it is not at the needed level to understand how it relates to the public, administrations, and the political sciences.

The article should include these subtopics: History Evolution Advantages Disadvantages/Criticisms Connection to modern political sciences (such as modern examples or events)

“At the heart of the practice of public administration is the relationship between administrators, on one hand, and political leaders and the public on the other hand.” The modern debate on the dichotomy of public administration is the connection between the political leaders and the administrators. In the past history review, Woodrow Wilson played a key role in this idea. In modern day, especially with the rapidly progressing advancement of technology, we are finding that the connection is growing closer. Presently there has been a switch from political leaders and the public being on the opposite hand to the administrators to the administrators working hand in hand with the public. Administrators have become increasingly more necessary when interacting and creating a political adaptable interaction with the public. The modern debate on the dichotomy is whether it favors the public sector having the administrators working more closely to their side or does it actually benefit the greater with the administrators working more with the political leaders. Many would argue that administrators, regardless of their specialty in working with the public, need to be more closely connected to the political leaders. This highlight of the modern affect of the PA Dichotomy is primarily bringing to the surface the third party involved in Public Administration, the public. Regardless, either hand to which the public administrator is on, they will intuitively aid both the political leader and the public sector because ultimately they are the connection between the two.

The notion of separation of powers is not only present when considering the three branches of government but also regard the separation between administrators, the public, and elected officials. Around the 19th century we saw the first step to a change in the outline of public administration, and soon after we gathered that an alteration was occurring in the foundation of what we believe public administration to be. Yet, there is still a notion of a separation of powers being included in the realm of PA. As stated in the primary paragraph, the main focus is on this change of administrators no longer being separated but rather being closer to both sides of the spectrum and dealing with both the public and elected officials.