DIKOTOMI POLITIK-ADMINISTRASI WOODROW WILSON DAN REFORMASI BIROKRASI AMERIKA SERIKAT, 1887-1920
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26740/avatara.v14i3.83056Abstract
ABSTRAK
Artikel ini menganalisis pengaruh pemikiran Woodrow Wilson mengenai pembedaan politik dan administrasi terhadap reformasi birokrasi Amerika Serikat sepanjang 1887-1920. Persoalan utamanya ialah kecenderungan historiografi administrasi publik menghubungkan esai “The Study of Administration” secara langsung dengan terbentuknya birokrasi profesional, padahal reformasi merit telah dimulai sebelum 1887 dan praktik pemerintahan Wilson tetap sarat pertimbangan politik. Penelitian menggunakan metode sejarah berbasis studi pustaka melalui heuristik, kritik sumber, interpretasi, dan historiografi. Sumber primer mencakup esai Wilson, undang-undang federal, laporan Civil Service Commission, serta dokumen kelembagaan; sumber sekunder terdiri atas kajian sejarah negara administratif dan artikel ilmiah mutakhir. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan tiga bentuk pengaruh. Pertama, Wilson menyediakan bahasa normatif yang menempatkan administrasi sebagai bidang profesional, efisien, dan relatif terlindung dari patronase. Kedua, gagasannya beresonansi dengan perluasan sistem merit dan pembentukan badan regulasi berkeahlian, tetapi perubahan tersebut lebih tepat dipahami sebagai hasil konvergensi legislasi, konflik kepartaian, industrialisasi, dan kebutuhan perang daripada penerapan doktrin tunggal. Ketiga, segregasi pegawai federal pada masa kepresidenan Wilson membuktikan bahwa pemisahan analitis antara politik dan administrasi tidak menghapus nilai serta relasi kuasa dalam keputusan kepegawaian. Artikel ini menyimpulkan bahwa warisan Wilson bersifat diskursif dan institusional secara tidak langsung: dualitas tersebut membantu melegitimasi profesionalisasi birokrasi, sekaligus menyamarkan dimensi politik dari administrasi. Temuan ini menggeser penilaian dari model pengaruh linear menuju model mediasi historis yang menautkan gagasan, koalisi reformasi, desain kelembagaan, dan praktik diskriminatif.
Kata kunci: Woodrow Wilson; dualitas politik-administrasi; reformasi birokrasi; Amerika Serikat
ABSTRACT
This article examines the influence of Woodrow Wilson’s distinction between politics and administration on bureaucratic reform in the United States from 1887 to 1920. It challenges a persistent tendency in public administration historiography to connect “The Study of Administration” directly to the rise of a professional bureaucracy, even though merit reform predated the essay and Wilsonian governance remained politically contested. The study applies a historical method based on library research through heuristics, source criticism, interpretation, and historiography. Primary sources include Wilson’s essay, federal statutes, Civil Service Commission reports, and institutional documents; secondary sources include studies of American state-building and recent scholarly articles. The findings identify three forms of influence. First, Wilson supplied a normative vocabulary that portrayed administration as a professional and efficient sphere relatively protected from patronage. Second, his argument resonated with the expansion of merit recruitment and expert regulatory bodies, yet these developments resulted from the convergence of legislation, party conflict, industrialization, and wartime demands rather than the implementation of a single doctrine. Third, racial segregation in the federal workforce during Wilson’s presidency demonstrates that an analytical separation between politics and administration did not remove values and power from personnel decisions. The article concludes that Wilson’s legacy was discursive and indirectly institutional: the dichotomy legitimized bureaucratic professionalization while obscuring the political content of administration. This interpretation replaces a linear influence model with one of historical mediation connecting ideas, reform coalitions, institutional design, and discriminatory practice.
Keywords: Woodrow Wilson; politics-administration dichotomy; bureaucratic reform; United States
Downloads
References
DAFTAR PUSTAKA
A. Buku
Balogh, B. (2009). A government out of sight: The mystery of national authority in nineteenth-century America. Cambridge University Press.
Bertelli, A. M. (2021). Democracy administered: How public administration shapes representative government. Cambridge University Press.
Carpenter, D. P. (2001). The forging of bureaucratic autonomy: Reputations, networks, and policy innovation in executive agencies, 1862–1928. Princeton University Press.
Federal Reserve Act, Pub. L. No. 63-43, 38 Stat. 251 (1913).
Federal Trade Commission Act, Pub. L. No. 63-203, 38 Stat. 717 (1914).
Goodnow, F. J. (1900). Politics and administration: A study in government. Macmillan.
Gottschalk, L. (1969). Understanding history: A primer of historical method (2nd ed.). Alfred A. Knopf.
Hoogenboom, A. (1968). Outlawing the spoils: A history of the civil service reform movement, 1865–1883. University of Illinois Press.
Howell, M., & Prevenier, W. (2001). From reliable sources: An introduction to historical methods. Cornell University Press.
Kennedy, D. M. (1980). Over here: The First World War and American society. Oxford University Press.
Kuntowijoyo. (2013). Pengantar ilmu sejarah. Tiara Wacana.
Lodge, M., & Wegrich, K. (Eds.). (2014). The problem-solving capacity of the modern state: Governance challenges and administrative capacities. Oxford University Press.
Mashaw, J. L. (2012). Creating the administrative constitution: The lost one hundred years of American administrative law. Yale University Press.
Overeem, P. (2012). The politics-administration dichotomy: Toward a constitutional perspective (2nd ed.). CRC Press.
Pestritto, R. J. (2005). Woodrow Wilson and the roots of modern liberalism. Rowman & Littlefield.
Rohr, J. A. (1986). To run a constitution: The legitimacy of the administrative state. University Press of Kansas.
Skowronek, S. (1982). Building a new American state: The expansion of national administrative capacities, 1877–1920. Cambridge University Press.
Tosh, J. (2015). The pursuit of history: Aims, methods and new directions in the study of history (6th ed.). Routledge.
U.S. Civil Service Commission. (1888). Fifth annual report of the United States Civil Service Commission. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Congress. (1883). Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act, ch. 27, 22 Stat. 403.
U.S. Congress. (1887). Interstate Commerce Act, ch. 104, 24 Stat. 379.
Van Riper, P. P. (1958). History of the United States civil service. Row, Peterson.
Waldo, D. (1948). The administrative state: A study of the political theory of American public administration. Ronald Press.
Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology (G. Roth & C. Wittich, Eds.). University of California Press.
White, L. D. (1958). The Republican era, 1869–1901: A study in administrative history. Macmillan.
Wilson, W. (1908). Constitutional government in the United States. Columbia University Press.
Yellin, E. S. (2013). Racism in the nation’s service: Government workers and the color line in Woodrow Wilson’s America. University of North Carolina Press.
B. Jurnal Ilmiah
Althaus, C., & O’Faircheallaigh, C. (2022). Bureaucratic representation, accountability, and democracy: A qualitative study of Indigenous bureaucrats in Australia and Canada. Public Administration Review, 82, 646–659. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13492
Aneja, A., & Xu, G. (2022). The costs of employment segregation: Evidence from the federal government under Woodrow Wilson. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 137(2), 911–958. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjab040
Aneja, A., & Xu, G. (2024). Strengthening state capacity: Civil service reform and public sector performance during the Gilded Age. American Economic Review, 114(8), 2352–2387. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20230019
Bersch, K., & Fukuyama, F. (2023). Defining bureaucratic autonomy. Annual Review of Political Science, 26, 213–232. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051921-102914
Brorström, S., & Norbäck, M. (2020). ‘Keeping politicians at arm’s length’: How managers in a collaborative organization deal with the administration–politics interface. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 86(4), 657–672. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852318822090
Callahan, R., & Mau, T. A. (2024). Reconceptualizing the politics-administration dichotomy to better understand public leadership in the twenty-first century: A multilateral actors model. The American Review of Public Administration, 54(3), 229–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/02750740231213407
Glock, J. (2023). The novice administrative state: The function of regulatory commissions in the Progressive Era. Studies in American Political Development, 37(1), 41–60. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0898588X22000190
Guo, S. (2019). Political-administrative dichotomy: Its sources, logic and debates. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 7, 356–368. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2019.73030
Kuipers, N., & Sahn, A. (2023). The representational consequences of municipal civil service reform. American Political Science Review, 117(1), 200–216. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055422000521
Montjoy, R. S., & Watson, D. J. (1995). A case for reinterpreted dichotomy of politics and administration as a professional standard in council-manager government. Public Administration Review, 55(3), 231–239. https://doi.org/10.2307/3110241
Okayama, H. (2016). The Interstate Commerce Commission and the genesis of America’s judicialized administrative state. The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era, 15(2), 129–148. https://doi.org/10.1017/S153778141500081X
Overeem, P. (2005). The value of the dichotomy: Politics, administration, and the political neutrality of administrators. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 27(2), 311–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2005.11029490
Rosenbloom, D. H. (2008). The politics-administration dichotomy in U.S. historical context. Public Administration Review, 68(1), 57–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00836.x
Sager, F., Rosser, C., Hurni, P., & Mavrot, C. (2022). The politics of the politics-administration dichotomy. In F. Sager, C. Rosser, P. Hurni, & C. Mavrot (Eds.), A transatlantic history of public administration: Analyzing the USA, Germany, and France. Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781839109447.00009
Sahn, A. (2023). Reform reconsidered: The effects of form of government. Journal of Historical Political Economy, 3(3), 337–370. https://doi.org/10.1561/115.00000055
Stillman, R. J., II. (1973). Woodrow Wilson and the study of administration: A new look at an old essay. American Political Science Review, 67(2), 582–588. https://doi.org/10.2307/1958787
Svara, J. H. (1998). The politics-administration dichotomy model as aberration. Public Administration Review, 58(1), 51–58. https://doi.org/10.2307/976889
Wilson, W. (1887). The study of administration. Political Science Quarterly, 2(2), 197–222. https://doi.org/10.2307/2139277
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 AVATARA e-Journal Pendidikan Sejarah
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Abstract views: 0
,
PDF Downloads: 0
