-Feb. 1987): 17-25. Question 3

All three of the works described by Bertelli and Lynn focus on the separation of responsibility among the branches of government. John Mabry Matthews asserted that "the work of government can be divided into the formulation and execution of public policy" (p. 35). He was a strong advocate of transparent government and believed that public administration should not be treated as an afterthought.

The key elements of Willoughby's Principles of Public Administration, were based on the notion that the government should be run like a corporation, with the President acting as, essentially, the general manager. He complained of a "failure to apply scientific principals" (p. 40) such as those outlined by Taylor, as well as the abundant administrative responsibilities of legislative branch, which he believed should belong to the executive branch.

Leonard White's key points centered on the mechanical nature of the executive branch, and the mishandling of power within the Federal government. He was concerned about the President having too close, and too vested, of an interest in the daily goings on of the other branches. He was additionally troubled by the manner in which responsibilities were distributed. He believed that a balance of power could not be achieved without an equitable distribution of power. His most poignant statement in this regard is "Responsibility of officialdom to legislature and to courts, sometimes to the electorate, is a matter of law... Responsiveness of officialdom to enacted policies...is not a matter of law but of spirit" (p. 40).

Works Cited

Bertelli, Anthony and Laurence Lynn. Madison's Managers: Public Administration and the Constitution. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 2006.

Question 4

I find...

178). He emphasizes how Roosevelt was eager to exploit the connection between civil administration and local politics, and in doing so, secure himself as the executor of administrative goals. In fact, it was most likely the need for hope in the American public that inspired Roosevelt to develop and support his New Deal programs. By the same token, it was also this need for hope that likely prompted the American public to buy into them.
The issue of a professionalism and new nationalism for the American Army was also an important determinant of the new American state. As Skowronek makes clear "even the threat of a world war did not spark a consensus on these matters" (p. 213). When divisions are that deep, crystallizing the divide becomes a task that, if successful, warrants significant attention.

Finally, corporatism, that is, the desire for "a cooperative partnership of government and industry" helped to shape the new American state in the sense that "the politics of American state building simply could not sustain the corporate ideal" (p. 213). Currently corporatism is more prevalent than it has probably ever been in America, and it continues to cause fears of socialism just as it has throughout our nation's history.

Works Cited

Skowronek, Stephen. Building a New American State: The Expansion of National Administrative Capacities, 1877-1920. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982.