Part (i)
Introduction
Despite the birth of public administration as a discipline in the late 1800s, the correct place of
public administration in politics has remained a contentious issue. Wilson (1887) laid up what
eventually became known as the politics-administration dichotomy, a theoretical paradigm that
highlights the different characteristics of public administration in comparison to politics.
According to Wilson (1887), public administration "doesn't belong in the appropriate field of
politics." There is a (p. 210). It is based on a functional-structural conception of government, which
divides governmental power between elected and administrative authorities on functional lines.
Thus, government is seen as having two distinct areas, namely politics and administration, with
elected and administrative officials occupying each one.
Many academics have helped Wilson's primitive ideas mature into a model of public
administration that influenced the intellectual identity of public administration up to the 1940s.
Following substantial challenges, the politics-administration dichotomy lost some of its theoretical
and normative appeal, leading to the emergence of alternative models. Even if it has faded from
memory, the debate over the right role of public administration in the democratic process has not
gone away. Researchers and practitioners care about this long-running debate because it has
implications for the field's identity and its future growth as a profession in public administration.
Politics and Administration Dichotomy
Elected authorities and administrative officials are shown as being on opposite sides of a divide in
the duality. According to the dichotomy paradigm, the roles of politics and administration are
different. Disputes and disputes are dealt out via the process of politics and legislation; this process
culminates in laws and policies. The goal of politics is to provide direction to the executive branch
of government. Public administration is on the opposite side of the policy-making process, and its
primary role is to translate value decisions into real outcomes. Public managers, in particular, need
a specialized set of knowledge and abilities known as expertise. It is the job of public
administrators to ensure that the policy-making process is conducted in a neutral and objective
manner. To put it another way, this dichotomy states that "administration is beyond the appropriate
area of politics" (Wilson 1887).
Figure 1 - Conceptual Model of the Politics Administration Dichotomy
Politics and administration should be kept apart, according to the dichotomy's reasoning. Both are
critical for public managers' democratic accountability as well as their capacity for strategic
planning, according to the theoretical model behind the study (e.g., Wolf 1999). It was necessary
for our model to provide an unanalyzed link between the neutral competence and political guidance
constructs so that this assumption could be included into the model. Furthermore, public
administrators' capacity to plan effectively will certainly rise if elected officials and administrators
follow their duties to the letter of the law. Wilson's conception of the dichotomy as separating the
two sides, "as if each function operates best as an independent variable, capable of being enhanced
in isolation without jeopardizing or interfering with the other side," is consistent with this idea
(Martin 1988).
Part (ii)
Difference between public administration and business administration
There are many similarities between the fields of public and corporate administration, but there
are also many differences. Both the public and private sectors use management systems and
technologies to keep their organizations running smoothly and help them expand. The following
are the most significant distinctions between public and private management, according to studies.
After examining the differences between the two occurrences, it is simple to establish the parallels
between them.
Governance
Because public managers now focus more on delivering high-quality services to the public, they
are subject to public law, while private businesses are subject to commercial law. Both of these
courses of action are used by company owners, and they are held responsible to the merchantable
legislation, which requires them to function under a variety of various sorts of public
administration. Public administration is quite different from private administration in this regard.
For example suppose in a Divisional secretariat’s office governance goes up until to a minister in
a relevant ministry such as Social Service ministry but in Business Administration that is mainly
done by Managing director, CEO or the board of directors.
Objectives
When it comes to public administration, the focus is on non-economic, socio-political goals, while
the focus of business administration is only on profit-making, which is the primary goal of public
administrations. To put it another way, business management is all about increasing output and
decreasing costs so that an enterprise may be profitable. The goal of public service is to use state
resources to provide high-quality service at the lowest possible cost. This can be mainly seen in
Sri Lanka also since most of the public offices such as road development authority runs without
profit orientation while a business like Access engineering targets both commercial profit as well
and finishing the projects.
Policies
The policies that aid in achieving these two ends are distinct from one another. Because of the
people they serve, public administration executes public policy. Business administration, on the
other hand, is tasked with putting private policies into action and serving the needs of private
corporations. Policies of a business may change from the business to business for example human
resource policy of screening of new candidates but in public administration there is a separate
common process for screening individuals in all of the government institutions as per a gazette.
Funding Sources
Taxes are the lifeblood of public administration, and as a result, information on how those funds
and resources are managed should be readily available to anybody who wants it. This ensures that
public officials are held to account by the people they serve. Its financing comes from private
sources like as stockholders' equity and bank loans; it is thus solely responsible to those who put
their money into it. This is obvious for example in a company like John Keells they fund from
profit as well as shareholder contribution while the institutions like Education Ministry runs solely
from government treasury which is funded by tax income.
Growth related factors
Law and order, political stability, and national wealth are all non-quantifiable goals pursued by
public administration. It's hard to quantify its effectiveness. During a career in business
administration, a company's profitability may be assessed.
Operation Channel
Because their ultimate goals are different, their operational strategies also vary. Overly meticulous
record-keeping is a hallmark of the public sector's bureaucratic approach. Business administration,
on the other hand, emphasizes the significance of time and profit. For example in passport office
Passport approval channel is a lengthy one through many officers while for a private organization
applying for a loan in a bank is of lesser steps.
Flexibility
Public administration is more time-consuming than company administration since people don't
always agree on the same issue. The external socio-political environment puts more pressure on
public administration than on corporate administration since there are so many different points of
view. This is another example of the distinctions between public and private sector management.
For example if a private organization needs money for a urgent cause Finance manager can
approve it at once but in a public administration these approvals are pre programmed that takes
more time to go through the channel which is less flexible.
Related Theories
Public administration theory is distinct from business administration theory, resulting in a distinct
professional path. Because public administration's goals, methods, tactics, and surrounding
environment vary from those of private sector, the theoretical frameworks that apply in both fields
are distinct.