2.1. Separation Models: Preserving Administrative Neutrality

The separationist perspective is most prominently associated with Woodrow Wilson’s seminal essay The Study of Administration (1887) and Frank J. Goodnow’s Politics and Administration (1900). Wilson, influenced by European administrative traditions, argued for a professionalized bureaucracy insulated from partisan politics, aiming to counter nepotism and patronage (Ergun, 1997; Eryılmaz, 2022; Tortop et al., 2016). Goodnow (1900) formalized this distinction by identifying two fundamental functions of the state: “the expression of the will of the people” (politics) and “the execution of that will” (administration), advocating that administrative functions be shielded from political interference.

Max Weber (1964) reinforced this separation through his bureaucratic model, emphasizing political neutrality and impartial governance. Earlier European theorists such as Johann Caspar Bluntschli (1875) argued that politics addresses “large and universal” issues, whereas administration deals with “individual and minor” matters—an approach that influenced Wilson’s thinking (Martin, 1988). In this tradition, administration is a technical domain, politics is the realm of statesmen, and each must remain distinct for effective governance.

2.2. Integration Models: Challenging the Dichotomy

By the mid-20th century, scholars began to challenge the feasibility and desirability of strict separation. Paul Appleby (1949) contended that administration is inherently political because it participates in policy formation and interpretation. Herbert Simon (1947, 1997) rejected the fact–value dichotomy, arguing that administrative decisions are inseparable from political values. Dwight Waldo (1948, 1987) emphasized the cultural and normative dimensions of administration, viewing it as both a science and an art intertwined with democratic values.

Other critiques further blurred the boundaries. Miewald (1984) highlighted administrators’ discretionary and ethical roles, while Van Riper (1984) reframed Wilson’s intent as promoting neutrality rather than strict separation. Yang and Holzer (2005) linked the integration of politics and administration to contemporary debates on administrative ethics. Collectively, these perspectives argue for recognizing the interdependence of political and administrative processes rather than artificially isolating them.

2.3. Complementary and Hybrid Models

A third orientation seeks to reconcile separation and integration by viewing politics and administration as distinct yet interdependent spheres. James Svara (1998, 2001, 2006; 2003) developed the “complementarity” model, in which elected officials and administrators share responsibility for policy formulation and implementation. This interaction occurs within a dynamic “zone of overlap” rather than along rigid boundaries.

Building on this, Alford et al. (2017) introduced the concept of the purple zone—the negotiated space between politics and administration—while Van Dorp and ’t Hart (2019) and Overeem (2008) emphasized the craft of top public servants in navigating this zone. These hybrid models acknowledge that functional differentiation remains necessary but must coexist with collaborative governance practices.

2.4. Historical Depth and Intellectual Lineage

Although the dichotomy emerged as a formal concept in the late 19th century, its intellectual roots extend back centuries. Montesquieu’s The Spirit of the Laws (1748) established the principle of separation of powers, distinguishing between legislative, executive, and judicial functions (Karasu, 2004). John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government (1689) reinforced the need to separate legislative and executive powers.

Nineteenth-century European thinkers expanded these ideas into administrative theory. Vivien’s Administrative Studies (1859) differentiated “political” functions—serving the collective will—from “administrative” functions—delivering public services. Bluntschli’s The Theory of the State (1875) conceptualized public administration as a discrete field distinct from both politics and law. These European formulations significantly influenced the American discourse, linking the dichotomy to broader traditions in political philosophy and governance.

2.5. Contemporary Relevance

The politics–administration dichotomy remains a valuable lens for analyzing governance in the 21st century, even if interpreted less rigidly. Globalization, managerial reforms, and complex policy environments have intensified the interplay between political decision-making and administrative expertise (Simon, 1944). Crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic illustrate how political leadership and administrative capacity converge in urgent decision-making contexts (Petridou, 2020). The concept of scientization—the reliance on expert knowledge in policymaking—has both reinforced and challenged traditional boundaries between politics and administration during such crises.

In sum, the literature reveals an evolving continuum rather than a fixed binary. The dichotomy’s persistence lies in its adaptability: it functions not as a problem to be solved, but as a conceptual tool for navigating the shifting boundaries and overlapping roles inherent in modern governance (Overeem, 2006; Svara, 2001). This thematic synthesis provides the analytical foundation for the bibliometric analysis presented in this study, enabling a systematic mapping of the intellectual, thematic, and geographic contours of the politics–administration debate.

3.1. Research Design

This study adopts a quantitative bibliometric research design to systematically map and evaluate the scholarly landscape of the politics–administration dichotomy. Bibliometric analysis is widely recognized as a robust approach for uncovering publication patterns, intellectual structures, and emerging trends within a research field (Zupic & Cater, 2015; Chen, 2017). By combining descriptive performance indicators with science mapping techniques, the study not only quantifies scholarly output but also reveals the thematic and structural relationships that underpin the field.

The choice of bibliometric methods is grounded in two key considerations. First, the politics–administration dichotomy has been examined across diverse theoretical traditions and geopolitical contexts; therefore, a systematic mapping approach enables the integration of these dispersed contributions into a coherent intellectual structure. Second, bibliometric techniques—particularly co-citation and bibliographic coupling—allow for the identification of latent thematic clusters and research fronts that may not be apparent through traditional narrative reviews (Small, 1973; Van Eck & Waltman, 2014).

3.2. Data Source and Search Strategy

The Web of Science Core Collection (WoS) was selected as the sole data source for this study for three primary reasons. First, WoS offers comprehensive coverage, providing high-quality, multidisciplinary access to peer-reviewed journals, books, and conference proceedings relevant to public administration. Second, its citation data integrity ensures consistent and reliable citation indexing, which is essential for accurate co-citation and bibliographic coupling analyses (Durieux & Gevenois, 2010). Third, the use of WoS facilitates comparative benchmarking, enabling alignment with prior bibliometric studies in the field of public administration (e.g., Krauskopf, 2018).

The search was performed using the topic field, which includes the title, abstract, author keywords, and Keywords Plus. The query applied was: “Politics–Administration Dichotomy” OR “Politics Administration Dichotomy.” No temporal restrictions were imposed in order to capture the historical evolution of the concept from its earliest appearance in the WoS database. The initial search yielded a total of 190 records (retrieved on January 2025). These comprised 175 research articles, 10 book chapters, 8 conference proceedings, 4 review articles, 2 books, 2 early-view articles, 1 book review, and 1 editorial review. All document types were retained to ensure a comprehensive representation of the scholarly discourse surrounding the politics–administration dichotomy.

3.3. Data Cleaning and Standardization

Prior to conducting the analysis, the dataset underwent a rigorous data cleaning and preprocessing procedure to ensure both accuracy and consistency, following established best practices in bibliometric research (Karataş, 2023; Van Eck & Waltman, 2014; Zupic & Cater, 2015). Initially, duplicate records were identified and removed through systematic cross-checks across the Web of Science (WoS) sub-indexes to prevent redundancies that could bias subsequent analyses. Subsequently, author name disambiguation was performed, standardizing variations in author representation—for instance, reconciling “James H. Svara” with “J. Svara”—to maintain consistency in author-level analyses.

Following this, keyword harmonization was carried out to consolidate synonymous or variant terms, such as “administration–politics dichotomy” and “politics–administration dichotomy,” thereby enhancing the accuracy of co-occurrence and thematic mapping. Finally, institutional affiliations were standardized to account for historical or linguistic variations in institutional naming, exemplified by unifying “University of Gothenburg” and “Göteborg University.” Collectively, these preprocessing steps were essential to minimize noise, reduce potential errors, and ensure the reliability of the bibliometric analysis.

3.4. Analytical Techniques

The bibliometric analyses were conducted using VOSviewer (version 1.6.20), a widely adopted software tool for constructing and visualizing bibliometric networks (Van Eck & Waltman, 2007, 2010, 2011, 2014). This platform enabled a comprehensive exploration of the structure and dynamics of research on the politics–administration dichotomy.

Initially, performance analysis was conducted to provide descriptive statistics on publication outputs, document types, and temporal trends, offering an overview of the evolution of the field. Subsequently, a co-occurrence analysis of author keywords was performed to identify dominant research themes and emerging concepts. A minimum threshold of two co-occurrences was applied to ensure that identified patterns reflected meaningful associations rather than incidental co-occurrences.

To investigate relational structures among publications, bibliographic coupling was employed, examining connections among documents, journals, authors, institutions, and countries based on shared references. This approach facilitated the identification of both thematic and geographic clusters within the literature. Complementing this, co-citation analysis was conducted to uncover foundational works, influential journals, and prominent authors by assessing the frequency with which pairs of sources were cited together.

Finally, cluster detection was performed using VOSviewer’s Visualization of Similarities (VOS) mapping technique to reveal thematic groupings and intellectual structures within the research domain. Parameter thresholds, including minimum citation counts and co-occurrence limits, were determined iteratively to achieve an optimal balance between network readability and the richness of the extracted information. Collectively, these analyses provided a robust and multidimensional understanding of the intellectual landscape surrounding the politics–administration dichotomy.

3.5. Limitations

Although bibliometric analysis offers rigorous quantitative insights into the structure and dynamics of scholarly research, several limitations merit consideration. First, the exclusive reliance on the Web of Science (WoS) as the primary data source may have led to the omission of relevant studies indexed in alternative databases, such as Scopus or Google Scholar, potentially constraining the comprehensiveness of the dataset. Second, the analysis is inherently limited to publications in languages covered by WoS, which may underrepresent significant contributions published in non-English languages, thereby introducing a language bias. Third, citation-based indicators, while widely used, tend to favor older publications, which have had more time to accumulate citations, potentially overlooking more recent but impactful studies.

Despite these limitations, the methodological approach adopted in this study—including rigorous data cleaning, author and keyword standardization, and robust network analysis techniques—ensures that the dataset remains both representative and analytically sound. As a result, the study provides a nuanced and reliable exploration of the intellectual and thematic landscape of research on the politics–administration dichotomy.

4.1. Keyword Network Analysis

Author keywords were analyzed through a co-occurrence network approach using VOSviewer (version 1.6.20), a widely adopted software for bibliometric mapping in social sciences (Van Eck & Waltman, 2014). This method enables the visualization of conceptual clusters, where node size represents the frequency of a keyword and edge thickness indicates the strength of co-occurrence between keywords (Cobo et al., 2011). Such network analyses are commonly applied in public administration bibliometric studies to reveal thematic structures and intellectual linkages.

The analysis included keywords with a minimum of two co-occurrences, resulting in a network of 16 highly frequent terms out of 119 distinct keywords in the dataset. As shown in Figure 1, three dominant thematic clusters emerged:

Figure 1Keywords Network Analysis Map 

Source: Own elaboration

Centrality measures revealed that public administration and governance had the highest degree centrality, indicating their strong presence and connectivity within the literature. Conversely, politics–administration dichotomy displayed high betweenness centrality, functioning as a bridging concept that links the theoretical discourse with practical governance themes. A temporal overlay analysis further indicated a shift in thematic emphasis over time. While public administration has consistently remained a core keyword since the earliest publications, terms such as governance, politicization, and purple zone have gained prominence in the past decade, reflecting an increasing scholarly interest in hybrid and collaborative models of politics–administration interaction (Alford et al., 2017; Van Dorp & ’t Hart, 2019). This evolution underscores the dynamic nature of the debate and its adaptation to contemporary governance challenges.

4.2. Bibliometric Coupling Analysis

Bibliometric coupling analysis is a method used to examine common references between the articles under study. When two distinct articles cite the same source or sources, it indicates a bibliometric connection between them. The degree of similarity between these articles is determined by the extent of their shared references. As the similarity of the references increases, the connection between the two articles strengthens (Al et al., 2019; Durieux & Gevenois, 2010; Umut-Zan, 2012). The measure of this similarity, expressed through the matching of references, is the number of articles shared between the two documents. Connections can be established based on the number of shared citations across documents, journals, authors, universities, and countries (Gao & Guan, 2009; McCain, 1991; Small & Koenig, 1977; Zhao & Strotmann, 2008). Thus, bibliometric coupling analysis can be conducted in five distinct ways. In principle, this analysis is applied to documents. The resulting link map is presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2Bibliometric Coupling Network Analysis Map of Articles 

Source: Own elaboration

The network analysis presented in Figure 2 illustrates which works are most frequently cited together. This map reveals that certain works are more often cited in tandem due to shared characteristics. This relationship is visually represented by ties in different colors on the map. Therefore, identifying the reasons for these patterns will help us pinpoint the key areas of debate regarding the politics-administration dichotomy. The groups of these works are summarized in Table 1.

In the public administration literature, the politics–administration dichotomy debate has evolved within diverse theoretical orientations, methodological approaches, and contextual emphases. Although the examined studies share a common objective of understanding and explaining this relationship, they are clustered according to their respective conceptual frameworks, research methods, and focal contexts. All of the works address the foundational debate in public administration regarding the separation of politics and administration, either by critically examining its historical origins and theoretical validity or by analyzing its manifestations in practice. In this regard, a shared feature among them is the tendency to conceptualize the politics–administration relationship not merely as a strict division or conflict, but, in many cases, as a complementary, intertwined, and context-dependent interaction.

The works in the “Blue” group, particularly those by Svara and Rosenbloom, conceptualize the politics–administration dichotomy as a “myth” and propose integrated approaches such as the “complementarity model.” This group develops theoretical frameworks and historical analyses that transcend the dichotomy while preserving the functional distinctions between politics and administration. The “Red” group, by contrast, seeks to normatively reconstruct the dichotomy, employing metaphors such as the “purple zone” to highlight areas of intersection between politics and administration. The studies in this group emphasize the interactional capacity of the two spheres, particularly in the context of leadership roles, local government practices, and senior bureaucracy.

The “Yellow” group focuses on the empirical testing of theoretical models, aiming to measure the real-world manifestations of the politics–administration relationship. The works by Demir, Georgious, and Yang employ survey data, concept mapping, and comparative analyses to identify the degree of alignment—or disconnection—between theory and practice. In contrast, the “Green” group examines the politics–administration relationship in the context of crises, scientization, and shifts in administrative paradigms. Topics such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the role of expert bodies, and the tension between scientific expertise and democratic legitimacy are central to this group’s analysis. Consequently, these studies shed light on hybrid governance models that emerge in extraordinary circumstances, transcending the traditional dichotomy.

Overall, this classification reflects a differentiation among theoretical, normative, empirical, and contextual approaches. It demonstrates that the politics–administration dichotomy debate is not pursued through a singular, one-dimensional lens, but rather continues as a multi-layered discourse shaped by diverse methods, contexts, and paradigms.

Figure 3Bibliometric Coupling Network Analysis Map of Journals 

Source: Own elaboration

The second analysis conducted as part of the bibliometric coupling analysis focuses on journals. The primary objective of this analysis is to identify the journals in which research on the politics-administration dichotomy receives the most attention. This analysis examines which journals publish the articles that share common references, rather than analyzing where the referenced works themselves are published. The analysis is conducted in the following stages. The results of this analysis are presented in Figure 3.

As a result of the analysis, it is observed that some journals cluster into groups; however, these groups are not meaningfully distinct and are centered around the same central point. Therefore, the key focus of this analysis is to identify the journals that publish the most frequently cited articles on the politics-administration dichotomy. According to the map in Figure 3, which presents the results of this analysis, it is evident that the journals Public Administration Review and The American Review of Public Administration occupy significant positions. This suggests that studies published in these two journals are more influential in shaping the discourse on the politics-administration dichotomy.

The third analysis conducted within the scope of bibliometric coupling focuses on researchers (authors) who cite the same works. In some cases, however, it may be necessary to examine authors individually rather than focusing solely on the works that establish these network connections. Indeed, a researcher may have multiple publications, and their name may appear in different orders across works. Therefore, the network connections between authors citing common references across all articles subject to content analysis were examined. This approach allows for the identification of researchers who frequently establish connections with each other based on shared citations. The results of this analysis differ from those based on the number of works published. Instead, this analysis highlights the authors' ties to the researchers they most commonly cite. The results of this network analysis are presented in Figure 4.

Figure 4Bibliometric Coupling Network Analysis Map of Authors 

Source: Own elaboration

The fourth bibliometric coupling analysis was conducted on the authors' institutions. The primary objective of this analysis is to identify which universities or research centers place greater emphasis on the politics-administration dichotomy. The results are presented in Figure 5.

Figure 5Bibliometric Coupling Network Analysis Map of Authors' Institutions 

Source: Own elaboration

The analysis presented in Figure 5, which maps the affiliations of the authors, reveals the existence of two distinct intellectual clusters characterized by reciprocal citation patterns. These clusters appear to correspond to geographically and institutionally differentiated schools of thought. Specifically, the cluster represented in red predominantly comprises universities based in the United States, whereas the cluster in green is largely constituted by European institutions. This geographic and institutional segmentation suggests that interpretations and scholarly approaches to the politics-administration dichotomy may be shaped by distinct academic traditions and regional epistemologies. Moreover, the observed clustering underscores the potential influence of institutional culture and national scholarly frameworks on the development and dissemination of ideas within the field.

Figure 6Bibliometric Coupling Network Analysis Map of Countries 

Source: Own elaboration

The fifth analysis within the bibliometric coupling framework shifts the focus from institutional affiliations to the national contexts of the authors themselves. Unlike the previous analysis, which emphasized the geographic origin of the journals, this approach prioritizes the countries in which the contributing scholars are based. The results of this investigation are summarized in Figure 6, providing insights into the transnational distribution of scholarly contributions and highlighting potential patterns of national influence in the field. This perspective allows for a more nuanced understanding of how geographic and cultural contexts may shape research orientations, citation behaviors, and the diffusion of ideas within the academic discourse.

The findings of this analysis, illustrated in Figure 6, reveal the presence of three distinct clusters of countries. The red cluster comprises the United States, Turkey, Belgium, China, the Netherlands, and South Korea; the green cluster includes Australia, Sweden, and Norway; and the blue cluster consists of Canada and the United Kingdom. This tripartite division underscores notable regional variation in scholarly perspectives on the politics-administration dichotomy. Such differentiation may reflect the influence of national academic traditions, policy environments, and historical trajectories on the conceptualization and interpretation of the politics-administration interface. These patterns suggest that research agendas and theoretical emphases in the field are, at least in part, shaped by the geographic and cultural context of the contributing scholars.

4.3. Co-Citation (Reference) Analyses of Research

Co-citation analysis (Zupic & Cater, 2015, p. 431), a type of traditional citation analysis (the analysis of references in the bibliographies of research), is one of the most widely used methods in quantitative science mapping studies (Chen et al., 2010, p. 1386). Small (1973, p. 265), considered a pioneer of bibliometric research, defines this analysis as the frequency with which a reference type (document, journal, or author) is cited together. Co-citation is defined as citing two different publications in the bibliography of a study (Rehn et al., 2014, p. 8). Three types of analyses are performed in co-citation studies: work-based, source-based, and author-based co-citation analyses (Zupic & Cater, 2015, p. 429). First, in the joint analysis based on works (documents), references in the bibliographies of 190 articles analyzed within the scope of the research are examined. This allows for the identification of key works in the politics-administration dichotomy. The results of this analysis are presented in Figure 7.

Figure 7Work (Document) Based Co-Citation (Reference) Analyses 

Source: Own elaboration

The co-citation analysis presented in Figure 7 includes works that have been cited together at least five times within the 2,135 references drawn from 190 articles, aiming to identify publications of critical significance in the field. The results reveal three primary thematic clusters, corresponding to the regions highlighted in red, blue, and green. Notably, distinct intellectual lineages are associated with each cluster: Wilson’s contributions are situated in the green cluster, Waldo and Goodnow in the red cluster, and Appleby and Gulick in the blue cluster. This clustering illustrates a clear differentiation between scholars who advocate for a strict separation of politics and administration and those who support a more integrated perspective, highlighting the structured categorization of positions within the politics-administration dichotomy. A detailed list of the predominant studies within each cluster is provided in Table 2, offering further insight into the foundational literature that has shaped ongoing debates in the field.

The distribution of works across the “Blue,” “Red,” and “Green” groups in this classification illustrates distinct historical, theoretical, and methodological orientations within the politics–administration dichotomy debate. Although all of the included studies address the interplay between political authority and administrative practice, their grouping reflects differences in historical periodization, normative stance, and conceptual framing.

The “Blue” group is composed primarily of mid-20th-century and late-20th-century works that engage with the broader theoretical foundations and identity of public administration as a discipline. Authors such as Appleby (1949), Gulick (1933), and Long (1949) emphasize the practical realities of governance, focusing on how policy and administrative functions intersect within political systems. Rutgers (1997) and Sayre (1958) extend this discussion by reflecting on the evolving identity of public administration scholarship and the interplay of power, policy, and administrative processes. Collectively, these works move beyond a rigid dichotomy, framing politics and administration as overlapping domains shaped by historical and institutional forces.

The “Red” group brings together classical and modern critiques of the dichotomy, blending normative and empirical perspectives. Goodnow’s (1900) foundational treatise provides an early articulation of the politics–administration separation as a means of ensuring effective governance, while Waldo (1952) reframes the discussion in light of democratic theory. More recent contributions— Overeem (2005), Svara (1998), and Demir & Nyhan (2008)—critically examine both the value and limitations of the dichotomy. This group thus captures a spectrum from historical justification of the separation to contemporary empirical tests, unified by their engagement with the question of political neutrality and administrative legitimacy.

The “Green” group spans the earliest statement of the dichotomy in Wilson’s (1887) “The Study of Administration” to later works that challenge or reinterpret it. Roberts (1994) situates neutrality within the philanthropic and institutional development of the field, while Svara’s works (1999, 2001) propose the complementarity model as an alternative to rigid separation. Nalbandian (1994) offers a reflective, practice-informed perspective on the politics–administration interface. The thematic coherence of this group lies in its emphasis on rethinking the dichotomy’s applicability, integrating both historical origins and practice-oriented insights into a more fluid conceptualization of the relationship.

Taken together, the three groups reflect the chronological and conceptual evolution of the politics–administration debate: from the early prescriptive formulations of separation, through mid-century reflections on identity and practice, to contemporary critiques and integrative models. This classification underscores that the dichotomy has never been a static or universally accepted principle; rather, it has served as a shifting reference point for theoretical development, empirical inquiry, and practical reflection in public administration scholarship.

Within the scope of co-citation analyses, the sources of the cited works were examined. In this context, it was found that the 2,135 references mentioned above were included in 1,324 different sources. When the sources of the works that were cited together at least ten times were identified, 21 sources (journals) were found. The purpose of this analysis is to determine which journals' perspectives contributed to the theories and ideas that form the basis of the politics-administration dichotomy. Therefore, it can be inferred that these journals guide scientific research on the dichotomy. The results of this analysis are presented in Figure 8. According to these results, "Public Administration Review" emerges as the dominant source. Hence, it can be concluded that the articles published in this journal play a guiding role in shaping the discourse on the politics-administration dichotomy.

Figure 8Source (Journal) Based Co-Citation (Reference) Analyses 

Source: Own elaboration

As part of the co-citation analyses, the third analytical approach concentrated on examining the authors of the cited works. This procedure facilitates the identification of scholars whose contributions exert the greatest influence on the research domain, even in instances where publications involve multiple authors. The outcomes of this analysis are depicted in Figure 9.

Figure 9Researcher (Author) Based Co-Citation (Reference) Analyses 

Source: Own elaboration

Across the 190 articles included in this study, a total of 1,496 distinct researchers were cited. For the purposes of this analysis, only those cited on at least five occasions were considered, yielding a network that maps the interconnections among 78 studies. The findings indicate that these researchers are organized into discrete clusters. It is reasonable to infer that these clusters reflect shared intellectual orientations, particularly with regard to their perspectives on the politics–administration dichotomy. This clustering underscores not only patterns of scholarly influence but also the thematic coherence that structures discourse within the field. The results of the analysis indicate that Svara J. H., Waldo D., Rosenbloom D. H., Demir T., Rutgers M. R., and Wilson W. are the most frequently cited scholars within the dataset. This prominence suggests a strong intellectual linkage among their works, implying that their theoretical perspectives and conceptual frameworks play a guiding role in shaping research on the politics–governance dichotomy. The recurring citation of these authors highlights their foundational influence and indicates that contemporary scholarship in this area is, to a significant extent, anchored in their contributions. Consequently, understanding their work is essential for comprehending the prevailing debates and analytical trajectories within the field.