Anaysis of Articles Regarding Public Policy, Legislation and Politics

Article Summary American (and other Western) democratic political theory: Legitimizes decisions made through elective and legislative processes. Places a high value on participation and representation. Fears the “king” or, in modern terms, authoritarianism. Rejects transfer of decisions (often called “discretion” in public administration literature) to administrators. Basic Issue, Part 1 Are the servants of the public to decide their own course, or is their course, or is their course of action to be decided by a body outside themselves? My answer is that the servants of the public are not to decide their own course; they are to be responsible to the elected representatives of the public, and these are to determine the course of action of the public servants to the most minute degree that is technically feasible. It has long been customary to distinguish between policy-making and policy execution. But while the distinction has a great deal of value as a relative matter of emphasis, it cannot any longer be accepted in this absolute form. Public policy, to put it flatly, is a continuous process, the formulation of which is inseparable from its execution. Public policy is being formed as it is being executed, and it is likewise being executed as it is being formed. This view is controversial to Carl J. Friedrich.This objection looks like a simple assertion that however desirable representative participation may be in normative political theory, it is unachievable in practice if that is Friedrich’s claim, is it (a) a claim about ethics, or (b) relevant to ethics? Friedrich makes at least two more claims. He says that: The problems that governments face are too complicated to be solved by legislation. To solve them by legislation ...

... middle of paper ...

...ose” means is complex? However, it seems clear that Finer’s seemingly mechanistic sense of carrying out orders excludes choice. Thus, those compliant with Finer’s standard are not only NOT responsible, they are incapable of responsibility. The concept is irrelevant to what they are doing. The fact that the defendant acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility, neither the Nuremberg Tribunal nor Carl Friedrich got to the most important reason why administrators must have discretion. Friedrich got close. It helps to know that he also served as translator for the political writings of Immanuel Kant. The view advocated by Finer violates Kant’s Categorical Imperative, by treating government employees as means but not ends -- that is, by denying them voice in critical decisions in their own work -- thus it is immoral.