The Ties That Bind? Networks, Public Administration, and Political Science

2010 ◽  
Vol 43 (01) ◽  
pp. 7-14
Author(s):  
Laurence J. O'Toole
2021 ◽  
pp. 002085232199642
Author(s):  
Ringa Raudla ◽  
James W. Douglas ◽  
Zachary Mohr

Civil servants vary in the degree to which they hold technocratic attitudes. We explore whether bureaucrats’ exposure to politics and politicians is associated with the depoliticization dimension of the technocratic mentality. We use survey data of high-level executives in 19 European countries to explore factors that are associated with executives’ perceptions that removing issues and activities from the realms of politics leads to more farsighted policies. We find that respondents’ level of exposure to politics and politicians is indeed negatively associated with technocratic mentality. Bureaucrats have studied political science or public administration, work closer to politicians (in terms of type of organization), interact with them more frequently, and have more positive perceptions of these interactions tend to have lower levels of technocratic attitudes. Points for practitioners Beliefs affect behaviors and behaviors affect outcomes. Technocratic attitudes may limit the ability of civil servants to work effectively with politicians. We show that educational degrees that promote democratic values and exposure to politicians (particularly positive interactions) are associated with lower levels of technocratic attitudes. Given that a proper balance between political and technical knowledge can enhance organizational performance (Krause et al., 2006), these findings should be taken into account when staffing and structuring public organizations.


1973 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 661-664 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Vaison

Normally in political studies the term public policy is construed to encompass the societally binding directives issued by a society's legitimate government. We usually consider government, and only government, as being able to “authoritatively allocate values.” This common conception pervades the literature on government policy-making, so much so that it is hardly questioned by students and practitioners of political science. As this note attempts to demonstrate, some re-thinking seems to be in order. For purposes of analysis in the social sciences, this conceptualization of public policy tends to obscure important realities of modern corporate society and to restrict unnecessarily the study of policy-making. Public policy is held to be public simply and solely because it originates from a duly legitimated government, which in turn is held to have the authority (within specified limits) of formulating and implementing such policy. Public policy is public then, our usual thinking goes, because it is made by a body defined somewhat arbitrarily as “public”: a government or some branch of government. All other policy-making is seen as private; it is not public (and hence to lie essentially beyond the scope of the disciplines of poliitcal science and public administration) because it is duly arrived at by non-governmental bodies. Thus policy analysts lead us to believe that public policy is made only when a government body acts to consider some subject of concern, and that other organizations are not relevant to the study of public policy.


1952 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 660-676 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roscoe C. Martin

By tradition public administration is regarded as a division of political science. Woodrow Wilson set the stage for this concept in his original essay identifying public administration as a subject worthy of special study, and spokesmen for both political science and public administration have accepted it since. Thus Leonard White, in his 1930 article on the subject in the Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, recognizes public administration as “a branch of the field of political science.” Luther Gulick follows suit, observing in 1937 that “Public administration is thus a division of political science ….” So generally has this word got around that it has come to the notice of the sociologists, as is indicated in a 1950 report of the Russell Sage Foundation which refers to “political science, including public administration….” “Pure” political scientists and political scientists with a public administration slant therefore are not alone in accepting this doctrine, which obviously enjoys a wide and authoritative currency.But if public administration is reckoned generally to be a child of political science, it is in some respects a strange and unnatural child; for there is a feeling among political scientists, substantial still if mayhap not so widespread as formerly, that academicians who profess public administration spend their time fooling with trifles. It was a sad day when the first professor of political science learned what a manhole cover is! On their part, those who work in public administration are likely to find themselves vaguely resentful of the lack of cordiality in the house of their youth.


2000 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 265-279 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Douglas Kiel

This paper examines the evolution of the application of nonlinear dynamics and related methods to the study of political science and public administration throughout the 20th century. Some analysts understood the importance of nonlinearity to political and administrative studies in the early part of the century. More recently, a growing number of scholars understand that the political and administrative worlds are ripe with nonlinearity and thus amenable to nonlinear dynamical techniques and models. The current state of the application of both discrete and continuous time models in political science and public administration are presented. There is growing momentum in political and public administration studies that may serve to enhance the realism and applicability of these sciences to a nonlinear world.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document