The Fading Legacy of Woodrow Wilson

Abstract

As recently as five years ago, Wilson's A Study of Administration was one of the most widely respected publications in the history of the field. ' With few exceptions, modern historians echoed Waldo's assessment that Woodrow Wilson's 1887 essay is the most significant work in the history of self-aware Public Administration, a source of seemingly endless stimulation and controversy.' Some even presented Wilson as a founder of the self-aware study of public administration-as someone to whom other early writers looked for inspiration.3 Beginning with Van Riper's observation in 1983 that none of the early scholars ever cited Wilson, however, much of that enthusiasm began to sour.4 Van Riper's article was followed in quick succession by a devastating book of readings that was inspired by Wilson's centennial, but that included the accusations that Wilson disliked his own article and that he arrived at the dichotomy because of his incorrect translation of German.5 The chorus has continued with several unflattering references in Chandler's newly-released Centennial History of the American Administrative State. 6 Under the impact of this barrage, it is time to reassess Wilson's place among early scholars of the field. Was he as unknown, uncertain, and unskilled as some of the recent revelations would seem to indicate? If not, how can the modern interpretations be explained? If so, how did such a scholar become so widely respected and commonly identified as a founder of the field? This article attempts to address some of these questions by attempting to document four general points. First, Wilson may have been one of the most brilliant scholars we have ever produced, but he was neither read nor appreciated by most early American authors in the field. Instead, as historians have increasingly begun to realize, the study of public administration predates Wilson by a considerable margin, especially in Europe. American scholars knew of the earlier literature and used it as the inspiration for their ideas. Second, there was not one politics/administration dichotomy but two. Wilson's was original, and for that he deserves credit, even though his was apparently born of translation problems. However, Wilson's dichotomy was inappropriate to the scholarly tradition of the era. If other scholars knew of it, they rightfully ignored it. Third, Wilson soon realized his error and repudiated his politics/administration dichotomy within three years of publishing his article. Thereafter, he used the European version of the dichotomy, which also meant that he abandoned his original purpose for advocating the study of public administration.