Woodrow Wilson’s ‘The study of administration’ is an essay that has caused some polarity with regards to Wilson’s stand on politics and administration. While some scholars hold that Wilson’s essay argues for the separation of the politics and administration, others also hold that Wilson argues for the fusion of politics and administration. Wilson gives a roadmap of how to approach the subject by breaking it down in to three issues. These issues are the crux of Wilson’s essay, and give an indication of Wilson’s stance. They are the history of public administration, the subject matter of public administration and the best methods by which to develop administration. This paper would analyze Wilson’s essay based on these issues Wilson raised.
The History of Public Administration
Wilson gives a justification for why the science of administration had not gained traction in the periods before the 19th century. He claims that there was not an exact need for administration at the time, for it would have served little purpose at the time and such there was more emphasis placed on politics to the detriment of administration. He alludes to this when he states in page 199, that “The functions of government were simple, because life itself was simple. Government went about imperatively and compelled men, without thought of consulting their wishes. There was no complex system of public revenues and public debts to puzzle financiers; there were, consequently, no financiers to be puzzled” (Wilson, 1887, p.199). He however explains that this prioritization of politics over administration created inefficiencies which pervaded into the 19th century, hence why he states “administrative tasks have nowadays to be so studiously and systematically adjusted to carefully tested standards of policy, the reason why we are having now what we never had before, a science of administration” (Wilson, 1887, p. 200).
The Subject Matter of Public Administration
“The field of administration is a field of business. It is removed from the hurry and strife of politics; it at most points stands apart even from the debatable ground of constitutional study. It is a part of political life only as the methods of the counting-house are a part of the life of society; only as machinery is part of the manufactured product. But it is, at the same time, raised very far above the dull level of mere technical detail by the fact that through its greater principles it is directly connected with the lasting maxims of political wisdom, the permanent truths of political progress” (Wilson, 1887, p. 210).
The above quote is further proof of Wilson’s advocacy for the separation of politics from administration. He distinguishes administration from politics by defining it as beyond the strife filled nature of politics. Interestingly enough, Wilson does acknowledge politics in his definition of administration, however he acknowledges it to give credence to his argument for the separation of politics from administration. He, in seeking to not reduce administration to a “dull level of mere technical detail” makes the argument that embedded in the principles of administration itself are the principles that define politics itself. In essence, Wilson makes the argument that administration holds in it the tenets and ideals of politics which he states as “the lasting maxims of political wisdom, the permanent truths of political progress”, so the purpose that politics sets off to achieve is already embedded in administration which shows Wilson’s argument not only for the separation of politics but also a strong desire for administration over politics.
The Best Methods by Which to Develop Administration
Despite Wilson’s strong arguments for the science of administration, he seems to admit some deficiencies of administration. He poses questions about what administration would do to essential structures of governance. For instance, he states “To whom is official trustworthiness to be disclosed, and by whom is it to be rewarded? Is the official to look to the public for his praise and his push of promotion, or only to his superior in office?” (Wilson, 1887, p. 214).
Wilson however poses these questions not by way of acceding to the fusion of politics and administration but as a way of building a roadmap to not only guide the development of administration in America but to domicile it so it ties properly with the American style of governance. We see this clearly when he defends the adoption of administration which at the time, he argues was mostly Eurocentric: “But why should we not use such parts of foreign contrivances as we want, if they be in any way serviceable? We are in no danger of using them in a foreign way. We borrowed rice, but we do not eat it with chopsticks. We borrowed our whole political language from England, but we leave the words ‘king’ and ‘lords’ out of it” (Wilson, 1887, p.219).
Conclusion
Woodrow Wilson’s essay is a strong advocate for the separation of administration from politics. He holds that administration is an adequate and efficient style of governance which does not need to be fused with politics to achieve its desired effect.