Does Policy Influence Hollow Out Public Managers’ Political Neutrality?

• Author: Erik Hysing,Joachim Åström,Jan Olsson
• Date: 01 July 2022
• Published date: 01 July 2022
• DOI: 10.1177/00953997211050305
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997211050305

Administration & Society

2022, Vol. 54(6) 1019 –1044

© The Author(s) 2021

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/00953997211050305

journals.sagepub.com/home/aas

Article

Does Policy Influence

Hollow Out Public

Managers’ Political

Neutrality?

Joachim Åström1, Jan Olsson1,

and Erik Hysing1

Abstract

Consequences of public officials’ policy influence have been at the center

of debates on political–administrative relations. Based on a survey of public

managers in Swedish local government (N = 1,430), this study examines

whether policy politics hollows out political neutrality. The analysis shows

that although managers are highly involved in policy politics, attitudinal

support for the neutrality principle is strong. The enquiry into behavioral

intentions shows more variation. In relation to a set of dilemmas, most

managers would defend neutral competence, but significant minorities

would also act for more partisan reasons. However, we find no empirical

evidence that policy influence undermines political neutrality.

Keywords

political–administrative relations, political neutrality, policy politics, public

managers, Swedish local government

Introduction

The relationship between politicians and public administrators is a classic

theme that has continued to generate debate within public administration

1Örebro University, Sweden

Corresponding Author:

Joachim Åström, Örebro University, 701 82 Örebro, Sweden.

Email: joachim.astrom@oru.se

1050305AAS0010.1177/00953997211050305Administration & SocietyÅström et al.

research-article2021

1020 Administration & Society 54(6)

research. At the center of these debates is the question of whether public

administrators’ policy influence undermines their political neutrality

(Overeem, 2005; Svara, 2006a). This question evokes normative concerns.

The classic politics–administration dichotomy depicts the separation of polit-

ical and administrative spheres as critical to ensuring the political neutrality

of the administration. This dichotomy has provided a normative foundation

for modern public administration going back to Wilson (1887) and Weber

(1919/1946).

This model has been debated, however, on both normative and empirical

grounds (Demir, 2009; Lee & Raadschelders, 2008). For example, public

value research (Moore, 1995) emphasizes the importance of (entrepreneurial)

public managers providing public values to society within broad directives

from “the authorizing [political] environment” (Hartley et al., 2015; for a

critique, see Rhodes & Wanna, 2009). Others conclude that the dichotomy is

an unrealistic empirical model, suggesting that the relationship is better char-

acterized as a hybrid (Aberbach et al., 1981) or as a pair of complementary

roles, in which politicians and public administrators have overlapping func-

tions, are interdependent, and exert reciprocal influence (Svara, 2006a).

Following this line of reasoning, defining and upholding political neutrality

within the administration is less about drawing a clearly demarcated line and

more about active reflection and deliberation by public administrators

(Hartley et al., 2015) and/or having a more highly developed political leader-

ship (Torfing & Sørensen, 2019).

In response, defenders of the dichotomy have argued that, by distinguish-

ing between partisan politics (the struggle for power) and policy politics

(influence over the content of policy), the empirically observed policy influ-

ence of public administrators could be reconciled with ideals of political neu-

trality, conceptualized as officials being nonpartisan or even apolitical. As

argued by Patrick Overeem (2005), “public administrators cannot (and should

not) be excluded from the kind of politics that is inherent in policy-making,

but they can (and should) be excluded from politics that has a more partisan

character” (p. 322). From a classic Weberian perspective, however, uphold-

ing the dichotomy is important not only as a way to ensure that the adminis-

tration can avoid politicization when dealing with policy problems and policy

politics, but also because it serves as a bulwark against bureaucratic domi-

nance. In other words, power in the form of policy influence risks corrupting,

eroding, and hollowing out the bureaucratic ideal of political neutrality. How

the policy influence of public administrators is related to their attitudes

toward political neutrality deserves more research attention.

In addressing this question, it is important to recognize that political neu-

trality has dimensions of both principles and behavior, which cause tensions