{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01795096322241681, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0035026269702276708, 'mean_word_length': 5.38268156424581, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Political Roles of Senior Government Officials in Advanced Democracies

Those who took advanced courses in public administration in the 1960s certainly wrestled with a vast literature on the relation between politics and administration. The view that these two dimensions of the policy process are separate had prevailed through much of the century. Allegedly, those who played the most significant roles in shaping and implementing policies politicians and officials of the state each laid claim to separate turf. That is, politicians made policies while officials administered them. In some respects, the separation represented an overdrawn but understandable conclusion. It derived from Max Weber's work on the distinctiveness of vocations to political leadership and bureaucratic service. In fact, Weber himself did not uphold the dichotomy as a normative principle. Rather he simply attempted to underscore the peculiar character of a commitment to bureaucratic service. He considered it the secular equivalent to a religious vocation. Clerics and members of religious orders believe that they have received a call to a lifetime of service to God and the Church. Similarly, Weber held that officials of the state launched upon their careers dedicated to anonymous service to the political leadership and the public. However, Weber never deluded himself into thinking that the separation of political and bureaucratic careers translated into a neat dichotomy between policy and administration. As he noted: 'Under normal conditions, the power position of fully developed bureaucracy is always overtowering. The "political master" finds himself in the position of the "dilettante" who stands within the management of administration.' Notwithstanding its vaunted neutrality, even the British civil service never really embraced the policy/administration dichotomy. To be sure, those in the nineteenth century who attempted to transform Whitehall from the indolent captive of the aristocracy to a merit-based, administrative apparatus, hoped to remould it into a genuinely vocational cadre. For that matter, Benjamin Jowett an Oxford don who had a great effect on the 1854 Northcote/Trevelyan report anticipated Weber's view of public service as a calling. He waxed eloquent when