Building the American Administrative State: 1870–1920
This paper surveys the development of the American administrative state from the post-Civil War era through the Progressive Era, drawing on key scholarship by Stephen Skowronek, William Nelson, Daniel Carpenter, and Brian Cook. It traces the transition from a government organized around courts and parties, through the patchwork reforms of 1877–1900, to the bureaucratic reconstitution of 1900–1920. The paper also examines Nelson's account of reformers and the tension between majoritarianism and pluralism, Carpenter's theory of bureaucratic autonomy grounded in reputation and coalition networks, and Cook's contrast of Croly's and Wilson's visions for public administration's role in a constitutional democratic state.
- The State of Courts and Parties: Skowronek's foundational pre-administrative American government
- Statebuilding as Patchwork: 1877–1900: Incremental reform constrained by existing institutions
- Statebuilding as Reconstitution: 1900–1920: Creation of a new bureaucratic national administrative state
- Reformers and the Institutional Context: Nelson on moral reformers, majoritarianism, and pluralism
- Carpenter and Bureaucratic Autonomy: Reputation and coalitions as sources of agency independence
- Croly, Wilson, and the Role of Public Administration: Cook contrasts two visions of democratic administration
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- It synthesizes multiple major scholarly works — Skowronek, Nelson, Carpenter, and Cook — into a coherent chronological narrative of American state-building, showing how each builds on the last.
- It uses precise textual references (e.g., "state of courts and parties," "statebuilding as patchwork") to anchor analytical claims in primary source language, demonstrating close reading skills.
- The paper moves logically from structural history to organizational theory to normative debate, demonstrating the student's ability to integrate descriptive and analytical frameworks.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates comparative synthesis: rather than summarizing each text in isolation, it places authors in dialogue with one another, using Skowronek's structural argument as a baseline against which Nelson's moral reformers and Carpenter's coalition-building theory can be evaluated. This technique — showing how different scholars illuminate different dimensions of the same historical problem — is central to graduate-level political science writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper is organized thematically and chronologically. It opens with Skowronek's foundational concept of the court-and-party state, then follows the historical arc of reform through two distinct phases. It pivots to Nelson's institutional and moral analysis before shifting to Carpenter's organizational theory of bureaucratic autonomy. It closes with Cook's normative contrast between Croly and Wilson, moving from historical description toward theoretical and philosophical debate about the purpose of public administration.
The State of Courts and Parties
According to Skowronek, America did not begin with a "state" in the modern administrative sense. During the earliest years of the republic, the government chiefly functioned through courts and political parties. Skowronek refers to this arrangement as "the state of courts and parties" (1982). This state was organized with a regional focus for governmental action. Moreover, the state of courts and parties actively stood in the way of the rise and modernization of national administrative power, serving as an institutional obstacle rather than a foundation for centralized governance.
Statebuilding as Patchwork: 1877–1900
"Statebuilding as patchwork" (Skowronek 39) between 1877 and 1900 began when advocates of a national administration started pushing for reforms that would create a strong administrative state. However, they were not successful. Reforms could only emerge from within existing political institutions, and the politicians and administrators who held power had no compelling reason to reform the very institutions that granted them their authority.
Skowronek explains that patchwork reforms were the practical result. Some new institutions did emerge to meet growing demands on government, but government elites largely spent their efforts perfecting existing institutions rather than replacing them. The period thus produced incremental adjustments rather than structural transformation.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.