ABSTRACT

Reform and Neutrality Competence versus responsiveness has been a historical struggle in public adminis-

tration. From George Washington to John Quincy Adams, the small bureaucracies of

the federal government valued competence and qualification. In 1828, however, the

bureaucracy’s focus on competence shifted. The election of Andrew Jackson to the

presidency ushered in a new public administration philosophy-the so-called “spoils

system.” Central to the spoils system was the belief in a more “responsive” bureau-

cracy. Jackson believed that virtually any individual was ca-

pable of executing the “simple” tasks of public management,

which were thought to be a matter of “common sense.” Dis-

appointingly, a heavy price was paid for more responsive ad-

ministration under the spoils systems. Inefficiency was

widespread, profiteering was common, and scandals were

recurrent. The ills associated with the spoils system were

pervasive not only at the federal level but also throughout

state and municipal bureaucracies. A large, rapidly growing

and increasingly industrialized nation could not afford sub-

standard public service administration. Waste and corrup-

tion had to be restrained. In the post-Civil War period,

reformers made public appeals for efficient and honest gov-

ernment. Reformers, most notably Princeton University ac-

ademic (and future U.S. president) Woodrow Wilson,

insisted on a politics-administration separation. Wilson

championed a dichotomy, or firm separation, between the

determination and implementation of policy. Policy deter-

mination should occur via the political process, while policy implementation should

be the realm of apolitical administrators only. In other words, policy stands as an ex-

pression of state will through elected officials, and public administrators should ex-

ecute that expression of state will in a professional, competent, and apolitical fashion.

The Pendleton Civil Service Act of 1883 changed everything by creating a biparti-