By comparing the French and the U.S. controversies on the appropriate position of public administration within the constitutional order of the state after World War II, this article aims to contribute to the historical clarification of the politics–administration dichotomy as one of the key ideas of administrative research and theory. The article underscores that the same phenomenon—the rejection of the dichotomy—has led to different conclusions among administrative scholars on both sides of the Atlantic. In the United States, the dichotomy was rejected in favor of a reinforcement of the legislature and the judiciary as well as a more representative administration to preserve the plurality of interests of American society. In contrast, the French rejection was aimed toward strengthening the executive and the administrative elite as guardians of the general interest. The article illustrates how ideas and values about public administration change according to different spatiotemporal contexts. If these contexts are disregarded, understanding remains fragmentary at best, if not misleading.
ArnoldP. E. (1986). Making the managerial presidency: Comprehensive reorganization planning, 1905-1980. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2.
ArnoldR. D. (1980). Congress and the bureaucracy: A theory of influence. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
3.
BaloghB. (2009). A government out of sight: The mystery of national authority in nineteenth-century America. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
4.
BertrandA.LongM. (1960). L’enseignement supérieur des sciences administratives en France [Higher Education Teaching of Administrative Sciences in France]. Revue Internationale des Sciences Administratives, 26, 5-24.
5.
BevirM. (2002). The role of contexts in understanding and explanation. In BödekerH. E. (Ed.), Begriffgeschichte, Diskursgeschichte, Metapherngeschichte (pp. 159-208). Göttingen, Germany: Wallstein Verlag.
6.
BezesP. (2002). Aux origines des politiques de réforme administrative sous la Vème République: la construction du “souci de soi de l’État” [Administrative Reform under the Fifth Republic: Constructing Government Self-Management]. Revue Française d’Administration Publique, 2, 307-325.
7.
BezesP. (2009). Réinventer l’État: les réformes de l’administration [Reinventing Government: Administrative Reforms]. Paris, France: Presses de Sciences Po.
8.
Bonnaud-DelamareR. (1953). Progrès de la réforme administrative en France [Administrative Reform Progress in France]. Revue Internationale des Sciences Administratives, 19, 572-607.
9.
BumgarnerJ.NewswanderC. B. (2009). The irony of NPM: The inevitable extension of the role of the American state. The American Review of Public Administration, 39, 189-207.
10.
BurdeauF. (1995). Histoire du droit administratif [History of Administrative Law]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
11.
Chemillier-GendreauM. (1970). G. Valter, Le régime de l’organisation professionnelle de la cinématographie. Du corporatisme au régime administratif [The Professional Organization Regime of Cinematography. From Corporatism to Administrative Regime]. Revue Internationale de Droit Comparé, 22, 624-625.
12.
ChevallierJ. (1986). Science administrative [Administrative Science]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
13.
ChevallierJ. (1996). Public administration in statist France. Public Administration Review, 56, 67-74.
14.
ChevallierJ.LoschakD. (1974). Introduction à la science administrative [Introduction to Administrative Science]. Paris, France: Dalloz.
15.
CookB. J. (2016). Curing the mischiefs of faction in the American administrative state. The American Review of Public Administration, 46, 3-27.
16.
DahlR. A. (1947). The science of public administration: Three problems. Public Administration Review, 7, 1-11.
DebbaschC. (1978). Institutions et droit administratifs. L’action et le contrôle de l’administration [Administrative Institutions and Law. Administrative Action and Administrative Control]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
19.
DemirT.NyhanR. C. (2008). The politics–administration dichotomy: An empirical search for correspondence between theory and practice. Public Administration Review, 68, 81-96.
20.
DoddL. C.SchottR. L. (1979). Congress and the administrative state. New York, NY: John Wiley.
21.
DuboisV.DulongD. (Eds.). (1999). La question technocratique [The Technocratic Issue]. Strasbourg, France: Presses Universitaires de Strasbourg.
22.
DulongD. (1997). Moderniser la politique. Aux origines de la Ve République [Modernizing Policy. At the Origins of the Fifth Republic]. Paris, France: L’Harmattan.
23.
DuvergerM. (1970). Institutions politiques et droit constitutionnel [Political Institutions and Constitutional Law] (11th ed.). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
24.
Eymeri-DouzansJ.-M. (2001). La fabrique des énarques [The Making of the Administrative Elite]. Paris, France: Economica.
25.
FarrJ. (1995). From modern republic to administrative state. In EastonD.GunnellJ. G.SteinM. B. (Eds.), Regime and discipline: Democracy and the development of political science (pp. 131-168). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
26.
FavreP. (1989). Naissance de la science politique en France (1870-1914) [The Birth of Political Science in France (1870-1914)]. Paris, France: Fayard.
27.
FiorinaM. P. (1989). Congress: Keystone of the Washington establishment. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
28.
GausJ. M. (1938). Review of the papers on the science of administration by Luther Gulick and Lyndall Urwick. American Political Science Review, 32, 132-134.
29.
GausJ. M. (1949). Review of policy and administration by Paul H. Appleby. American Political Science Review, 43, 1035-1036.
30.
GeorgiouI. (2014). Seeing the forest for the trees: An atlas of the politics-administration dichotomy. Public Administration Review, 74, 156-175.
31.
GournayB. (1978). Introduction à la science administrative [Introduction to Administrative Science] (3rd ed.). Paris, France: Armand Colin.
32.
GulickL. H. (1933). Politics, administration, and the “new deal.”The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 169, 55-66.
33.
GulickL. H. (1937). Notes on the theory of organization. In GulickL. H.UrwickL. F. (Eds.), Papers on the science of administration (pp. 1-47). New York, NY: Institute of Public Administration.
34.
HansenK. M.EjersboN. (2002). The relationship between politicians and administrators—A logic of disharmony. Public Administration, 80, 733-750.
35.
HenryN. (1987). The emergence of public administration as a field of study. In ChandlerR. C. (Ed.), A centennial history of the American administrative state (pp. 37-85). New York, NY: Collier Macmillan.
36.
HerringE. P. (1936). Public administration and the public interest. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
37.
HofstadterR. (1955). The age of reform: From Brian to FDR. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
38.
JørgensenT. B.RutgersM. R. (2015). Public values: Core or confusion? Introduction to the centrality and puzzlement of public values research. The American Review of Public Administration, 45, 3-12.
39.
KarlB. D. (1963). Executive reorganization and reform in the New Deal: The genesis of administrative management, 1900-1939. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
40.
KellerL. F. (2006). Public administration and the American Republic: The continuing saga of management and administration in politics. In RabinJ.HildrethW. B.MillerG. J. (Eds.), Handbook of public administration (3rd ed., pp. 3-48). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
41.
KettlD. F. (2015). The transformation of governance: Public administration for the twenty-first century. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
42.
KingD.LiebermanR. C. (2009). Ironies of state building: A comparative perspective on the American state. World Politics, 61, 547-588.
43.
LangrodG. (1953). La méthode des cas et la science administrative américaine [The Case Method and American Administrative Science]. Revue Française de Science Politique, 3, 832-848.
44.
LangrodG. (1954). La science et l’enseignement de l’administration publique aux États-Unis [Public Administration Science and Teaching in the United States]. Paris, France: Armand Colin.
45.
LangrodG. (1955). The French Council of State: Its role in the formulation and implementation of administrative law. American Political Science Review, 49, 673-692.
46.
LangrodG. (1959). Initial administrative tendencies of the Fifth French Republic. Revue Internationale des Sciences Administratives, 25, 332-345.
47.
Le PillouerA. (2004). La notion de “régime d’assemblée” et les origines de la classification des régimes politiques [The Notion of “Assembly Regime” and the Origins of the Classification of Political Regimes]. Revue Française de Droit Constitutionnel, 58, 305-333.
48.
LongN. E. (1949). Power and administration. Public Administration Review, 9, 257-264.
49.
LongN. E. (1952). Bureaucracy and constitutionalism. American Political Science Review, 46, 808-818.
50.
LynnL. E.Jr. (2006). Public management: Old and new. New York, NY: Routledge.
51.
MartinD. W. (1987). Déjà vu: French antecedents of American public administration. Public Administration Review, 47, 297-303.
52.
MartinR. C. (1952). Political science and public administration: A note on the state of the union. American Political Science Review, 46, 660-676.
53.
MavrotC. (2015). The dawn of French administrative science (1945-1970): A renewed conception of the public servant. In SagerF.OvereemP. (Eds.), The European public servant: A shared administrative identity? (pp. 155-173). Colchester, UK: ECPR Press.
54.
MavrotC.HurniP.RosserC. (2010). Les sciences administratives: pérégrination des idées et lutes autour de l’appropriation d’un label [Administrative Sciences: Circulation of Ideas and Struggles for the Appropriation of a Label]. Annuaire des Sciences Administratives Suisses, 1, 171-182.
55.
MescheriakoffS. A. (1990). Légalité, efficacité, équité, les avatars de la légitimité administrative: le cas français [Legality, Efficacy, Equity. The Vicissitudes of Administrative Legitimacy: The French Case]. Revue Internationale des Sciences Administratives, 56, 359-381.
56.
MilhaudJ. (1956). Chemins faisant: tranches de vie [Along the Way: Life Histories]. Paris, France: Hommes et techniques.
57.
NiocheJ. P. (1982). Science administrative, management public et analyse des politiques publiques [Administrative Science, Public Management and Public Policy Analysis]. Revue Française d’Administration Publique, 24, 635-649.
58.
NovakW. J. (2008). The myth of the “weak” American state. American Historical Review, 113, 752-772.
59.
OlsenJ. P. (2006). Maybe it is time to rediscover bureaucracy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16, 1-24.
60.
OvereemP. (2012). The politics-administration dichotomy: Toward a constitutional perspective (2nd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
61.
OvereemP. (2015). The concept of regime values: Are revitalization and regime change possible?The American Review of Public Administration, 45, 46-60.
62.
OvereemP.RutgersM. R. (2003). Three roads to politics and administration: Ideational foundations of the politics/administration dichotomy. In RutgersM. R. (Ed.), Retracing public administration (pp. 161-184). Boston, MA: Elsevier.
63.
PainterM.PetersB. G. (Eds.). (2010). Tradition and public administration. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
64.
PayreR. (2002). Un possible non institutionnalisé: la science communale (1900-1950) [A Science that did not happen: The Communal Science (1900-1950)]. In Y.DéloyeVoutatB. (Eds.), Faire de la science politique. Pour une analyse socio-historique du politique (pp. 169-183). Paris, France: Belin.
65.
PayreR. (2006). L’État vu d’en haut: la réforme de l’État au sein des espaces internationaux de la science administrative dans l’entre-deux-guerres [The State Seen from Above: State Reform in the International Spheres of Administrative Science between the First and Second World Wars]. Revue Française d’Administration Publique, 120, 651-666.
66.
PellouxR. (1947). L’enseignement du droit public et des sciences politiques et les projets de réforme des facultés [Public Law and Political Sciences Teaching and Faculties Reform Projects]. Revue du Droit Public et de la Science Politique, 63, 54-67.
67.
PolenbergR. (1966). Reorganizing Roosevelt’s government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
68.
PugetH. (1951). Tradition et progrès au sein du Conseil d’État [Tradition and Progress in the Council of State]. Revue Internationale des Sciences Administratives, 17, 13-41.
69.
PugetH. (1963). L’extension du règlement aux dépens de la loi dans la nouvelle constitution française [The Growth of Regulation at the Expense of Law in the New French Constitution]. Revue Internationale des Sciences Administratives, 29, 221-226.
70.
RaadscheldersJ. C. N. (2000). Administrative history of the United States: Development and state of the art. Administration & Society, 32, 499-528.
71.
RhodesR. A. W.WannaJ. (2007). The limits to public value, or rescuing responsible government from the platonic guardians. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 66, 406-421.
72.
RiveroJ. (1953). Existe-t-il un critère du droit administratif? [Is there an Administrative Law Criterion?] Revue du Droit Public et de la Science Politique, 59, 279-296.
73.
RohrJ. A. (1986). To run a constitution: The legitimacy of the administrative state. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
74.
RohrJ. A. (1991). Ethical issues in French public administration: A comparative study. Public Administration Review, 51, 283-297.
75.
RohrJ. A. (1992). French constitutionalism and the administrative state. Administration & Society, 24, 224-258.
76.
RohrJ. A. (1995). Founding republics in France and America: A study in constitutional governance. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
77.
RosenbloomD. H. (1983). Public administrative theory and the separation of powers. Public Administration Review, 43, 219-227.
78.
RosenbloomD. H. (2000). Retrofitting the administrative state to the Constitution: Congress and the judiciary’s twentieth-century progress. Public Administration Review, 60, 39-46.
79.
RosenbloomD. H. (2002). Building a legislative-centered public administration. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
80.
RosenbloomD. H.O’LearyR.ChaninJ. (2010). Public administration and law. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
81.
RosserC. (2013). Examining Frank J. Goodnow’s Hegelian Heritage: A contribution to understanding progressive administrative theory. Administration & Society, 45, 1063-1094.
82.
RosserC. (2014). Johann Caspar Bluntschli’s organic theory of state and public administration. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 36, 95-110.
83.
RuggeF. (2003). Administrative traditions in Western Europe. In PetersB. G.PierreJ. (Eds.), Handbook of public administration (pp. 177-191). London, England: Sage.
84.
RüsenJ. (2012). Tradition: A principle of historical sense-generation and its logic and effect in historical culture. History and Theory, 51, 45-59.
85.
RutgersM. R. (2000). Public administration and the separation of powers in a cross-Atlantic perspective. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 22, 287-308.
86.
RutgersM. R. (2001a). Splitting the universe: On the relevance of dichotomies for the study of public administration. Administration & Society, 33, 3-20.
87.
RutgersM. R. (2001b). Traditional flavors? The different sentiments in European and American administrative thought. Administration & Society, 33, 220-244.
88.
RutgersM. R. (2003). Tracing the idea of public administration: Towards a renaissance of public administration? In RutgersM. R. (Ed.), Retracing public administration (pp. 1-36). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.
89.
SagerF.RosserC. (2016). Historical methods. In BevirM.RhodesR. A. W. (Eds.), Routledge handbook of interpretive political science (pp. 199-210). New York, NY: Routledge.
90.
SagerF.RosserC.HurniP. Y.MavrotC. (2012). How traditional are the American, French and German traditions of public administration? A research agenda. Public Administration, 90, 129-143.
91.
SayreW. S. (1958). Premises of public administration: Past and emerging. Public Administration Review, 18, 102-105.
92.
ShapiroM. M. (1988). Who guards the guardians? Judicial control of administration. Athens: University of Georgia Press.
93.
SpenlehauerV. (1999). Intelligence gouvernementale et sciences sociales [Government Intelligence and Social Sciences]. Politix, 12, 95-128.
94.
SpicerM. (2004). Public administration, the history of ideas, and the reinventing government movement. Public Administration Review, 64, 353-362.
95.
StewartR. B. (1975). The reformation of American administrative law. Harvard Law Review, 88, 1667-1813.
96.
StillmanR. J. (1997). American vs. European public administration: Does public administration make the modern state, or does the state make public administration?Public Administration Review, 57, 332-338.
97.
StokerG. (2006). Public value management: A new narrative for networked governance?The American Review of Public Administration, 36, 41-57.
98.
SuleimanE. N. (1973). L’administrateur et le député en France [The Civil Servant and the Elected Representative in France]. Revue Française de Science Politique, 23, 729-757.
99.
TsoutsosA. (1978). Administration publique et politique [Public Administration and Politics]. Revue Internationale des Sciences Administratives, 44, 323-332.
100.
VanneuvilleR. (2003). Le droit administratif comme savoir de gouvernement? René Worms et le Conseil d’État devant l’Académie des sciences morales et politiques au début du 20ème siècle [Administrative Law as Governmental Knowledge? René Worms and the Conseil d’État before the Academy of Ethical and Political Sciences at the Beginning of the 20th Century]. Revue Française de Science Politique, 53, 219-235.
101.
Van RiperP. P. (1984). The politics-administration dichotomy: Concept or reality? In RabinJ.BowmanJ. S. (Eds.), Politics and administration: Woodrow Wilson and American public administration (pp. 203-218). New York, NY: Marcel Dekker.
102.
VedelG. (1964). Droit administratif [Administrative Law] (3rd ed.). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
103.
VileM. J. C. (1967). Constitutionalism and the separation of powers. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
104.
WaldoD. (1987). Politics and administration: On thinking about a complex relationship. In ClarkR. (Ed.), A centennial history of the American administrative state (pp. 89-112). New York, NY: Free Press.
105.
WaldoD. (2006). The administrative state: A study of the political theory of American public administration (3rd ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
106.
WeberM. (1980). Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft: Grundriss der verstehenden Soziologie [Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology] (5th ed.). Tübingen, Germany: J.C.B. Mohr.
107.
WhickerM. L.OlshfskiD.StricklandR. A. (1993). The troublesome cleft: Public administration and political science. Public Administration Review, 53, 531-541.
108.
WhiteL. D. (1926). An introduction to the study of public administration. New York, NY: Macmillan.
109.
WoehrlingJ.-M. (1984). Le contrôle juridictionnel de l’administration en droit français [The Judicial Control over Administration into French Law]. Revue Française d’Administration Publique, 36, 19-43.
110.
YesilkagitK. (2010). The future of administrative tradition: Tradition as ideas and structure. In PainterM.PetersB. G. (Eds.), Tradition and public administration (pp. 145-157). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
