In a democratic society, the politics of administration dichotomy is the theory that builds the boundaries in the public administration and accounts for the normative relationship between administrators and the elected officials. The politics-administration dichotomy explains how administration and politics are inherently different and therefore should be approached differently. The administration is like a business and politics sets the responsibility of administration. On the other hand, Weberian bureaucracy is a bureaucratic theory formed by max weber to management principles. Max Weber believed that to set up an administration efficiently, the organization then one had to use bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is a set of rules and norms that govern an organization, enabling the administration to perform effectively. This paper aims to describe how old politics-administration dichotomy and Weberian bureaucracy are.

Politics administration dichotomy

Politics administration dichotomy was to separate politics and public administration. The dichotomy is obsolete in that without politics administrations cannot be formed; in short, they both rely on each other existence. Politics, in this case, has something to do with policies while administration aims at executing strategies. The politics is purposeful for policies and lawmaking while the administration is investing in the implementation of the laws formed the politics. The dichotomy of administration and procedure was not intended to control behavior instead of as a behavioral prescription directed against contemporary practices of machine politics. The model also had a strict definition. It is not possible to have one-way dichotomy that retains elected officials of the administration but then allows administrators to be active in the policy. The dichotomy level standing on its own is an aberration.  To have progress and objectivity, the politics must, therefore, separate from the administration. With doing the separation, every person would have equal power on their field rather than being controlled by the other.

Weberian bureaucracy

Bureaucracy seems to be obsolete since administrative reforms that have been implemented over the past few years have been a series of attacks over the hierarchical structure of the public administration. The standard arguments that go for bureaucracy are that it is slow, inefficient, rigid, and unable to change and it also fails to draw on the professional expertise in the organization and the external community. The bureaucracy is slow that an organization that needs a fast service cannot depend on it.  An administration needs efficient management to perform and achieve its goals, and with bureaucracy, it’s not attainable. For an organization to play well, the bureaucracy should be mobile so that it could be changed anytime when there is a need. Another issue people argued of is that bureaucracy is unfriendly to clients and therefore cannot promote customer attuned services to the general public. They also explained that it is too much formalized and standardize and the strict adherence to organizational goals and purposes. They misrepresented that bureaucracy should focus on the significant challenges they are facing in delivering public services to ensure efficacy in discharging public functions to compete effectively with private facilities. For obsolete reasons, some highly substantial changes have been implemented in the public sector.

In conclusion, the public administration discipline has gone through several stages to get accounted for. It has come from rigidity and impersonality of relationship and emphasizes on the existing rules. With bureaucracy in a state, politics can be played so well as people will fight to follow the rules and regulations given to them. The politics-administration of dichotomy also helped the nation because every citizen or customer had to abide by them and thus laws were well maintained.

 
Do you need high quality Custom Essay Writing Services?