Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T02:31:48.577Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“The Public Interest” in Administrative Decision-Making: Theorem, Theosophy, or Theory?*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Glendon A. Schubert Jr.
Glendon A. Schubert Jr.
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Textbooks in public administration customarily conclude with a section on administrative responsibility. The charitable inference is that this location betokens the saving of the best till last, rather than the appendage of an afterthought. Herbert Kaufman might explain it as the preoccupation of the past generation of political scientists with the legitimation of the efficient exercise of administrative power to subserve the goals of the social state, with a consequent sublimation of the emerging problem of the control of large, professionalized bureaucracies. However that may be, it does seem clear that, with the exception of administrative decisions which adversely affect “civil liberties,” most political scientists have been content to let lawyers and defenders of the free enterprise system worry about the restraint of administrative action.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 51 , Issue 2 , June 1957 , pp. 346 - 368
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1957

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Kaufman, Herbert, “Emerging Conflicts in the Doctrines of Public Administration,” this Review, Vol. 50, pp. 1057–1073 (December, 1956)Google Scholar.

2 Leys, Wayne A. R., “Ethics and Administrative Discretion,” Public Administration Review, Vol. 3, p. 10 (1943)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Ibid., p. 18.

4 See Waldo, Dwight, The Administrative State (N. Y., 1948), ch. 3Google Scholar.

5 Gulick, Luther and Urwick, L. (ed.), Papers on the Science of Administration (N. Y.: Institute of Public Administration, 1937), especially p. 192Google Scholar.

6 Simon, Herbert A., Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organization (N.Y., 1947), pp. 38–39, 186–187, 204, 240–241Google Scholar.

7 Waldo, op. cit., ch. 6.

8 Dean Leys has insisted that any coincidence between his concept of discretion and Freud's must be entirely coincidental. (Letter to the writer, February 27, 1956).

9 Leys, op. cit., p. 19.

10 Fainsod, Merle, “Some Reflections on the Nature of the Regulatory Process,” in Friedrich, Carl J. and Mason, Edward S. (ed.), Public Policy I (Cambridge, 1940), pp. 320–321, 322Google Scholar.

11 Ibid., p. 298.

12 Waldo, op. cit., p. 82.

13 Cf. Long, Norton, “Power and Administration,” Public Administration Review, Vol. 9, p. 260 (1949)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Redford, Emmette S., Administration of National Economic Control (N. Y., 1952), p. 229Google Scholar.

15 Friedmann, Wolfgang, Legal Theory (London, 1953), 3rd ed., p. 71Google Scholar: “Natural law terminology … may disguise the fundamental affinity between all those modern legal theories which, in opposition to positivism, stress the need of legal ideals …. Pound's ‘social engineering’ … and a host of others are natural law ideals in the modern relativist and evolutionary sense, whether they choose to adopt the term or not.”

16 Redford, op. cit., pp. 229–230. Italics in the original.

17 Ibid., p. 233.

18 Redford, Emmette S., “The Protection of the Public Interest with Special Reference to Administrative Regulation,” this Review Vol. 48, pp. 1107, 1108 (1954)Google Scholar.

19 Ibid., p. 1108.

20 Appleby, Paul H., Morality and Administration in Democratic Government (Baton Rouge, 1950), pp. 34–35Google Scholar.

21 Ibid., p. 163.

22 Ibid., p. 175.

23 Friedrich, Carl J., “Public Policy and the Nature of Administrative Responsibility,” in Friedrich, and Mason, (ed.), Public Policy I (Cambridge, 1940), p. 12Google Scholar.

24 Idem.

25 Ibid., p. 14.

26 Ibid., pp. 16–17. Italics supplied.

27 Ibid., p. 20. Italics supplied.

28 Finer, Herman, “Administrative Responsibility in Democratic Government,” Public Administration Review, Vol. 3, pp. 347, 339 (1941)Google Scholar. See also his “Better Government Personnel,” Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 51, p. 569 (1936)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 For further illumination on this issue, consult: McClosky, Herbert, “The Fallacy of Absolute Majority Rule,” Journal of Politics, Vol. 11, p. 637 (1949)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Kendall, Willmoore, “Prolegomena to any Future Work on Majority Rule,” Journal of Politics, Vol. 12, p. 694 (1950)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30 Grundstein, Nathan D., “Law and the Morality of Administration,” George Washington Law Review, Vol. 21, pp. 282, 286, 293, 303, 310 (1953)Google Scholar.

31 Taylor, Richard W., “Arthur F. Bentley's Political Science,” Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 5, p. 215 (1952)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 Bentley, Arthur F., The Process of Government (Bloomington, Ind., 1949), p. 222Google Scholar. [This book was originally published in 1908.]

33 Ibid., p. 292.

34 Truman, David B., The Governmental Process (N.Y., 1951), p. 443Google Scholar.

35 Ibid., pp. 50–51.

36 Appleby, Paul, Policy and Administration (University, Alabama, 1949), pp. 43–44Google Scholar.

37 The phrase is borrowed from the late Mr. Justice Jackson's dissenting opinion in Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 U. S. 157, 179 (1944).

38 Truman, op. cit., pp. 448–449.

39 Stein, Harold (ed.), Public Administration and Policy Development (N. Y., 1952), pp. xvi–xviiGoogle Scholar.

40 Herring, E. Pendleton, Public Administration and the Public Interest (N. Y., 1936), pp. vii, 8, 23–24, 259, 377Google Scholar.

41 Op. cit., p. 13, and also p. 93.

42 Leiserson, Avery, Administrative Regulation (Chicago, 1942), p. 14Google Scholar.

43 Leys, Wayne A. R., Ethics for Policy Decisions (N. Y., 1952), p. 68Google Scholar.

44 Simon, , Smithburg, , and Thompson, , Public Administration (N. Y.: Knopf, 1950), pp. 551–552. Italics suppliedGoogle Scholar.

45 Ibid., pp. 548–549, 551. The same view is expressed by Pfiffner, and Presthus, , Public Administration (N. Y., 1953), p. 530Google Scholar, who say that “his feeling for the public interest is an emotive force, bound up with the administrator's personal code of values, which will often, in turn, reflect the dominant egalitarian values of our society. The public interest, in this sense, is a democratic ideal which exerts a varying degree of influence on official behavior.”

46 Long, Norton E., “Bureaucracy and Constitutionalism,” this Review, Vol. 46, p. 809 (1952)Google Scholar.

47 Monypenny, Phillip, “A Code of Ethics for Public Administration,” George Washington Law Review, Vol. 21, p. 429 (1953)Google Scholar. He has also said that a code would be “useful in reducing to systematic statement the highest standards of perception and devotion which are active within an agency and securing their general adoption.” “A Code of Ethics as a Means of Controlling Administrative Conduct,” Public Administration Review, Vol. 13, p. 187 (1953)Google Scholar.

48 Ibid., p. 441

49 Cardozo, Benjamin N., The Nature of the Judicial Process (New Haven. 1921), pp. 66–67, 174–175Google Scholar.

50 Monypenny, op. cit., p. 435.

51 Long, Norton E., “Public Policy and Administration: The Goals of Rationality and Responsibility,” Public Administration Review, Vol. 14, pp. 25, 24, 30, 26 (1954)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

52 See, for instance, Arnow, Kathryn Smul [Committee on Public Administration Cases], The Consumers' Counsel and the National Bituminous Coal Commission, 1937–1938 (C.P.A.C., rev. 1950)Google Scholar.

53 Long, Norton, “Power and Administration,” Public Administration Review, Vol. 9, p. 260 (1949)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.