Our panel of 91 professional philosophers has responded to

87
 questions about 
Law
51
 questions about 
War
24
 questions about 
Suicide
109
 questions about 
Biology
80
 questions about 
Identity
27
 questions about 
Gender
32
 questions about 
Sport
36
 questions about 
Literature
153
 questions about 
Sex
218
 questions about 
Value
115
 questions about 
Children
88
 questions about 
Physics
570
 questions about 
Philosophy
124
 questions about 
Profession
165
 questions about 
Freedom
38
 questions about 
Race
2
 questions about 
Culture
77
 questions about 
Emotion
67
 questions about 
Feminism
43
 questions about 
Color
79
 questions about 
Death
242
 questions about 
Justice
69
 questions about 
Business
391
 questions about 
Religion
31
 questions about 
Space
34
 questions about 
Music
280
 questions about 
Mind
58
 questions about 
Punishment
104
 questions about 
Art
361
 questions about 
Logic
282
 questions about 
Knowledge
23
 questions about 
History
107
 questions about 
Animals
58
 questions about 
Abortion
209
 questions about 
Science
133
 questions about 
Love
54
 questions about 
Medicine
96
 questions about 
Time
68
 questions about 
Happiness
150
 questions about 
Existence
216
 questions about 
Education
67
 questions about 
Truth
75
 questions about 
Perception
5
 questions about 
Euthanasia
2
 questions about 
Action
282
 questions about 
Language
1266
 questions about 
Ethics
74
 questions about 
Beauty
4
 questions about 
Economics

Question of the Day

My perception is that distinctions of the sort you describe can be found but that they are both largley modern and contextual. So, one might determine the distinction in Hegel, Rawls, Foucault, etc. rather than find a uniform distinction across texts. A quick search of JSTOR raises this article that seems to offer some historical contextualization:

“Theories of the Origin of the State in Classical Political Philosophy” by Harry Elmer Barnes, in a journal called “The Monist.”
Vol. 34, No. 1 (January, 1924), pp. 15-62.

Dwight Waldo’s book, The Administrative State (1948 but reissued in 2017 by Routledge), is a classic and makes an interesting distinction between the administrative and welfare state that may be helpful to you.

As for the importance of the distinction, I leave that to others with more expertise in political philosophy, but my perception is that it is not terribly central. You will find some discussion of elite theory among political scientists. Trotsky’s critique of the Stalinist USSR comes to mind as relatively important, too.

Less relevant to your main question is your elaboration of the distinction. That elaboration seems tendentiously freighted—and I’m curious about whether there’s a connection between the distinction you draw and the politics of your elaboration. You do raise important philosophical questions about the proper role and function of the state and what sort of compensation and taxation policies are fair and just. What strikes me as tendentious is that you use the practices of private economic organizations as a standard against which to measure those of the government. Why not the other way around? Why not use the public to judge the private? Perhaps it’s not that workers and officials in government are treating themselves and others improperly but that the private sector is treating owners and employees improperly. Perhaps the unfair, self-interested conduct is not properly located among government workers but among the owners and managerial class of the private sector who have hoarded for themselves the wealth generated by the economy, leaving others unjustly without pensions and generally with diminished compensation.

I lived during a time when private sector pensions and medical benefits were much more extensive and substantial than they are today, and I saw them whittled away over the decades. Perhaps that was the injustice. Similarly, perhaps the trouble is not that government employees wish to hold onto their benefits in the face of deficits but that deficits have been unjustly created either deliberately, through incompetence, or though neglect by those responsible for securing state revenue through taxation, etc. Perhaps through the use of their assets in political donations, lobbying, think tanks, etc., the wealthy have improperly advanced an ideology of austerity at the expense of the polity generally.

—Of course, this alternative view is arguably tendentious, too. I raise it to illuminate the apparent implication of the way you put things. You may have thought this all through on a philosophical level, but it may instead be that the distinction you’re after is a tool of political activism and ideology of which you’re unaware rather than sober political philosophy.