¹ Hierarchy, often denominated as a division in the study of administrative structure coördinate with defined jurisdictions, should be regarded as but a particular aspect of the latter. Hierarchy is but the telescoping of lesser administrative units in greater units.

² The only American monographs in the field of federal administrative areas are unpublished, and deal with particular federal establishments rather than with the subject as a whole. Such are: Shaw, Carroll K.; Administrative Control of Field Services in the United States Treasury Department, typewritten doctoral dissertation, Urbana (University of Illinois), 1933Google Scholar; Price, Ernest B., Study of Regional Areas in Federal Administration: Exploratory Study of the Farm Credit Administration, typewritten, Washington (The Brookings Institution), 1934Google Scholar; Fesler, James W., Federal Administrative Regions, with Special Reference to War Department Procurement Planning Activities, typewritten doctoral dissertation, Cambridge (Harvard University), 1935Google Scholar.

In contrast to the American neglect of territorial jurisdictions, French administrative areas are dealt with in Doutre, Antoine, Les circonscriptions administrates spiciales (Bordeaux, 1927)Google Scholar. Those of Hungary are described and criticized in Hantos, Gyula, Administrative Boundaries and the Rationalisation of the Public Administration (Budapest, 1932)Google Scholar. The Committee on Public Administration of the Social Science Research Council has recently published Cohnstaedt's, WilhelmAdministrative Districting in Germany since 1918 (Chicago, 1935)Google Scholar.

³ E.g., the forthcoming Southern Regions, to be published under the auspices of the Southern Regional Committee of the Social Science Research Council. The magazine Social Forces, published at the University of North Carolina, frequently carries articles illustrative of the sociological approach to regionalism. See particularly the issues for December, 1929, and March and October, 1934.

⁴ Preëminently, Turner, Frederick Jackson, The Significance of Sections in American History (New York, 1932)Google Scholar, and Holcombe, Arthur N., The Political Parties of Today (New York, 1924)Google Scholar.

⁵ “Our Strengthening Sectionalism,” in The Invisible Government (New York, 1928), pp. 136–164Google Scholar, and “The New Deal and a New Constitution,” Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 156, pp. 617–624 (November, 1935)Google Scholar.

⁶ Pp. 191 ff.

⁷ Chicago Tribune, December 8, 15, 22, 1929; New York Times Magazine, April 21, 1935, p. 5Google Scholar; Saturday Evening Post, December 8, 1934, editorial page.

⁸ For a list of regional and national associations of state administrative officials, see Public Administration Clearing House, Directory of Organizations in the Field of Public Administration (Chicago, 1934)Google Scholar. A description of the activities, as well as a list, of such associations is available in Graves, W. Brooke, Uniform State Action (Chapel Hill, 1934)Google Scholar.

⁹ Maps showing all of these regional schemes appear in National Resources Committee, Regional Factors in National Planning and Development (Washington, 1935), pp. 206–223Google Scholar.

The list of regionalizing agencies and their schemes here presented differs considerably from the list of federal administrative “zones” or “regions” which appeared in Dr.Graves', W. Brooke article, “The Future of the States,” in the preceding issue of this Review, pp. 35–38Google Scholar. These differences are to be explained in part by the different periods of the two surveys, by expectable differences of opinion as to the definition of “region,” and, above all, by the inherent difficulties of a survey of all the federal agencies' field services during a time of emergency government. As each list contains regional schemes omitted from the other, it is suggested that the two lists should be used together.

¹⁰ Figure 1 presents data for only 85 regional schemes. All schemes which covered only particular parts of the United States were excluded, as they would destroy the usefulness of the chart for comparative purposes. As indicated on the chart, no attempt has been made to indicate the number of agencies using the 48 states as administrative areas. The point to be emphasized is that although nearly all agencies with field services must formally or informally use states as administrative areas, the administrative areas next below the nation are generally larger than single states.

¹¹ National Resources Board, A Report on National Planning and Public Works in Relation to Natural Resources … (Washington, December 1, 1934), p. 74Google Scholar. Natural Resources Committee, Regional Factors in National Planning and Development (Washington, December, 1935), esp. p. xiGoogle Scholar.

¹² St. Paul is chosen by 22 agencies; Minneapolis by 14.

¹³ National Resources Board, A Report on National Planning and Public Works in Relation to Natural Resources … (Washington, December 1, 1934), p. 74Google Scholar.

¹⁴ The writer has attempted to outline some principles of administrative regionalization in his Federal Administrative Regions, planned for publication this year.

¹⁵ National Resources Board, loc. cit. Cf. the more recent report of the National Resources Committee, Regional Factors in National Planning and Development (Washington, December, 1935), which states on p. xiGoogle Scholar: “We recommend pointing federal policy toward regrouping the field districts used by the numerous United States agencies … in the direction of achieving a limited number of regional centers, say 10 to 12. It is, of course, necessary and desirable that there be many types of districts for the many different agencies of the federal government ranging over many kinds of public services. But there are distinct advantages in economy of time and effort in directing these organizations more sharply toward some simpler framework.”