Deriving a theoretical and a technical frame for the study of administration conceals an
important point in Wilson’s essay,
the point that underscores the non-neutrality of public administration.
Wilson rather explicitly expresses a lukewarm reception of democracy and sees in
administration,
evolved as it is from centuries of statecraft, the solution for the management
of democracy.
A remark by Stillman about Wilson’s essay is pertinent to this point: “One might
speculate that a clear definition [of public administration] was not Wilson’s major intention in
his essay.
Rather what was more important to him and to his mugwump audience was finding an
appropriate ideology to justify their efforts to strengthen the executive branch, centralize authority,
and check congressional irresponsibility. And what would serve as a better rationale for
their moral reforms in government than an abstract appeal to the higher law of administration?”
(Stillman, 1973, p. 587).
Stillman’s remark skirts authorship by prefacing the claim with the
rather ambiguous “one might speculate,” so let the author of the present article be that
“one.” Inaugurating the study of administration is itself an act of closure (an ideology) seeking
to establish a system of order under a perceived threat of disorder. Put differently, as I will discuss
further below, public administration that follows a Wilsonian path is best understood
through Rancière’s concept of la police. As a system of order, Wilsonian public administration
does not seek the proper balance of politics and administration; it is premised on the elimination
of politics altogether. I hope to show that this is a thoroughly uncontroversial claim that fully
dissolves any appeal to neutrality for the field.