Modern Administrative State Research Articles

The Supreme Court's Third Century: Legitimacy, Bureaucracy, and Institutional Change

Reassessing the changing role and performance of our national governing institutions, and evaluating their capacity to deal with the growing complexities of life and politics in a modern administrative state, is an important corollary to celebrating the constitutional bicentennial. How, and how well, have institutions forged in a crucible of governmental passivity and restraint come to deal with the model of affirmative governance which has become dominant in the 20th century?' Looking ahead, how adequately are these institutions prepared to meet the challenges of a third century? Most scholars would probably agree that of the three branches of gov-

Mandates or Mandarins? Control and Discretion in the Modern Administrative State

The development of the state and the growth of *democracy constitute two of the most distinctive tendencies of modern government. The development of an advanced apparatus carries with it claims to the values of continuity, professionalism, expertise, and effectiveness. The other development, that of democracy, encompasses claims to the values of responsiveness, direction, and revitalization. Notwithstanding the desirability of each set of values, the means for meshing them in an optimal mix are hardly obvious. Even though it is widely accepted in democratic settings that the permanent administration must be accountable to constitutionally elected or delegated overseers, the precise terms of this agreement are much more controversial. Almost certainly, few of us come to see the struggle between control and discretion in entirely neutral terms. Typically, depending on our particular inclination, we tend to adopt perspectives that place more weight either on political or on administrative values, regardless of the importance we attach to the need for an optimal mix. Partisans of leadership (and these almost always include the incumbent set of leaders) are doers, not doubters. They want tools, not obstacles. To the extent that doubt exists about the willingness of career administrators to carry out faithfully the policy directions of the leadership, career administrators are viewed by actors as impediments rather than implements. Partisans of politics, consequently, typically look to enhance procedures for control and supervision of the permanent apparatus and, when deemed necessary, to politicize it. Partisans of the career administration, on the other hand, view it as the ballast that maintains the ship of state in unsteady seas. Its resistor-like qualities to the super-charged enthusiasms of new leaders are seen as a virtue, not a vice-a deterrent, in fact, to longer-run damage inflicted by leaders on themselves as well as on the organizational fabric of government. Partisans of public administration thus decry efforts to reduce the independence of career officialdom or to restrict severely discretion. The leadership view in the modern democratic polity is one that we characterize as the mandate perspective. Underlying it is the logic that the elected authorities have either a right, an obli* Although wide agreement exists that in democratic settings the permanent administration must be accountable to constitutionally elected or delegated overseers, the precise terms of the agreement are controversial. The terms are especially elusive and unclear in the United States because the separation of powers system clouds any straightforward principal-agent relationship between authorities and career officials. Competition between the principals, indeed, makes the apparatus a resource worth competing for in an effort to influence programmatic control over public policy. Some recent literature has emphasized the need for presidents to assert stringent control over the apparatus in order to assure compliance with their goals. Politicization of the federal bureaucracy is justified thereby as being either in the broader public interest or at least in a president's own interest. We argue that neither is likely to be the case, and that such efforts invite retaliation on the part of Congress.

Public Administrators and the Judiciary: The "New Partnership"

The bicentennial of the framing of the Constitution witnesses the emergence of a new relationship between public administrators and the judiciary. This relationship grows out of the convergence of two of the great historical developments of the past half centurydevelopments which are so central as to define much of the character of the United States polity today. One is the establishment of a full-fledged administrative state during the period since the inception of the New Deal in 1933. The importance of the modern administrative state is attested to not only by the number of personnel it employs and the amount of resources it uses, but also by the extent to which it has become a critical element in

The Constitutional Bicentennial and the Centennial of the American Administrative State

Two significant anniversaries for Americans occur in 1987: bicentennial of U.S. Constitution and centennial of founding of administrative state. Both hold very special meanings for public administration community. Two hundred years ago, in May 1787, delegates met in Philadelphia to draft a document that they hoped would create a new nation. One hundred years ago, in February 1887, Congress enacted Interstate Commerce Act, first of many regulatory bodies which would serve as central building blocks of modern administrative state. It is appropriate that first issue of PAR in 1987 be devoted to reflections concerning these two seminal events in U.S. history, their relationship and their influence upon American society yesterday, today, and tomorrow. first event is of course well known. Convening a constitutional convention to found a new nation is sort of event that occurs rarely in human history, and so beyond any question 1787 was one of most significant years in U.S. history. It even rivals several other key dates in importance-1492, 1607, 1776, 1803, 1812, 1861, 1917, 1933, 1941, and 1945-because it represents central political event in life of Americans. Washington, Hamilton, Madison, Franklin, and other 51 Framers, as we all know, labored hard throughout hot Philadelphia summer from May 25 to September 17, 1787, to draft a written Constitution to replace faulty Articles of Confederation (which was actually first U.S. Constitution). Their collective wisdom provided nation with a strong, resilient charter which would guide America's development from obscurity to world power and global leadership. Their labors also resulted in a bold, creative document, very different from any others up to that time, which would serve as fundamental law of land. With its adoption and addition of Bill of Rights in 1791, Constitution shifted basis of political authorityfundamentally and permanently-from a weak confederation to a federal republic based on popular rule.' Remember, Constitution begins, We people. . . . That decisive shift to popular-based rule makes Constitution perhaps most revolutionary document of all times, though sober-minded, realistic Framers of 1787 were hardly wild-eyed revolutionaries. Constitution opened an entirely new chapter in history. America would never look quite same after Founders performed their handiwork. Nor would world. Popular sovereignty shortly became very backbone of U.S. society; some would even say, arguably the American Way. As Tocqueville rightly observed 43 years after The Grand Convention of 1787, The people reign in American political world as Deity does in Universe. They are cause and aim of all things; everything comes from them and everything is absorbed by them.2 Here America set model for rest of western society to follow. Rightly ought 1787, not 1776, be cited as date when shots from American soil were really heard round world?

Organizational Change in the Machinery of Canadian Government: From Rational Management to Brokerage Politics

AbstractOrganizational change in the central machinery of government is essentially a function of executive leadership. The major determinants of such change are invariably political and not administrative in character and derive from the leadership paradigms of chief executive officers—their philosophy of government, management style and political objectives. This phenomenon is examined in the recent transformation of the Canadian central executive system from one based upon the Trudeau paradigm of rational management to one structured to fit the Mulroney paradigm of brokerage politics. The organizational instruments of each paradigm are considered and their respective capacities to meet the requirements of executive leadership in our modern administrative state are assessed. It is argued that the two different systems and the changes introduced by them are best explained by the paradigms of these two prime ministers.

Law, Reform, and the Modern Administrative State

Law, Reform, and the Modern Administrative State

The Shaping of Public Policy

"The Shaping of Public Policy" might be con strued as the public shaping of policy—reflecting concern about the republican or democratic or popular aspects of constitutional government in the U.S. One must ask what tendencies may shape fundamentally the shaping of policy in the nation's third century. Ten such tendencies are: environmental constraint, the modem mixed economy, the changing international order, postindustrial society, changing political values and ideologies, modern mass communica tions, urban society, the growing density and changing balance of federalism, the modern administrative state, and the changing character of public policy. Popular soverneignty, the people's ability to control government, is a useful rubric under which to consider democratic conditions for shaping public policy. The party system is critical in effectuating popular sovereignty. Other concerns are the role of interest groups, political and civic participation, and elections. Re quirements of popular sovereignty culminate constitutionally in policy shaping by responsible officials: Congress and the president. Our ways of shaping policy are as subject to constructive change through public understanding as through legislative actions or constitutional amendments.