1. Hawley, Ellis W., “Herbert Hoover, the Commerce Secretariat, and the Vision of an ‘Associative State,’ 1921–1928,” Journal of American History 61 (1974): 116–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2. Skidelsky, Robert J. A., John Maynard Keyner: A Biography (New York, 1986)Google Scholar; Gerstle, Gary, “The Protean Quality of American Liberalism,” American Historical Review 99 (1994): 1043–73Google Scholar; Greenstone, J. David, The Lincoln Persuasion: Remaking American Liberalism (Princeton, 1992), 35–65.Google Scholar

3. Steinmo, Sven H., “American Exceptionalism Reconsidered: Culture or Institutions?” in Dodd, Lawrence and Jillson, Calvin, eds., The Dynamics of American Politics: Approaches and Interpretations (Boulder, Colo., 1994), 106–31Google Scholar; Skowronek, Stephen, Building a New American State (New York, 1982), 290.Google Scholar

4. Hawley, “Herbert Hoover, the Commerce Secretariat, and the Vision of an ‘Associative State.’”

5. Alchon, Guy, The Invisible Hand of Planning: Capitalism, Social Science, and the State in the 1920s (Princeton, 1985), 4.Google Scholar

6. Hoover, speech, 7 May 1924, Herbert C. Hoover papers, Herbert Hoover Presidential Library (HHPL) (hereafter “Hoover papers”), “Bible” (speech file), item 378; Hawley, “Herbert Hoover, the Commerce Secretariat, and the Vision of an ‘Associative State,’” 116–20; Peri Arnold, “Ambivalent Leviathan: Herbert Hoover and the Positive State,” in Greenstone, J. David, ed., Public Values and Private Power in American Politics (Chicago, 1982), 113–23.Google Scholar

7. Layton, Edwin T. Jr., The Revolt of the Engineers: Social Responsibility and the American Engineering Profession (Cleveland, 1971), 179–200Google Scholar; Kellogg, Vernon, “Herbert Hoover and Science,” Science 73 (20 February 1931): 197–99Google Scholar; Karl, Barry D., “Presidential Planning and Social Science Research: Mr. Hoover's Experts,” Perspectives in American History 3 (1969): 361–62.Google Scholar

8. “Hoover Disavows Policy Favoring Business Combines in Big Units,” Journal of Commerce, 5 June 1925, Hoover papers, “Bible” (speech file), item 493; “On to Greater Discovery!” Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, September 1923, Hoover papers, “Bible” (speech file), item 31A.

9. Cuff, Robert D., The War Industries Board: Business-Government Relations During World War I (Baltimore, 1973)Google Scholar; Schwarz, Jordan A., The New Dealers: Power Politics in the Age of Roosevelt (New York, 1993), 32–34Google Scholar; Hawley, “Herbert Hoover, the Commerce Secretariat, and the Vision of an ‘Associative State,’” 121, 138.

10. Jones, Franklin D., Trade Association Activities and the Law (New York, 1922)Google Scholar, chap. 7; Department of Commerce, Trade Association Activities (Washington, D.C., 1923), chap. 11Google Scholar; National Industrial Conference Board, Trade Associations: Their Economic Signi/icance and Legal Status (New York, 1925), 212–15Google Scholar; Spraragen, William, “Trade Association Research,” in Ross, Malcolm, ed., Profitable Practice in Industrial Research (New York, 1932), 182–84.Google Scholar

11. Committee on Elimination of Waste in Industry of the FAES, Waste in Industry (Washington, D.C., 1921)Google Scholar; Fourteenth Annual Report of the Secretary of Commerce (Washington, D.C., 1926)Google Scholar; Tanner, William R., “Secretary Hoover's War on Waste, 1921–1928,” in Krog, Carl E. and Tanner, William R., eds., Herbert Hoover and the Republican Era (Lanham, Md., 1984), 1–6.Google Scholar

12. “Wilhelm, Donald, 1919–1922 April,” Hoover papers, Commerce series, Box 147; “Simplified Practice: What It Is and What It Offers,” Department of Commerce pamphlet, 1924, available in Littauer Library, Harvard University, 1; R. M. Hudson to Hoover, 15 July 1927, Hoover papers, Commerce series, Box 145, “Simplified Commercial Practice”; Sixteenth Annual Report of the Secretary of Commerce (Washington, D.C., 1929), xxxiv.Google Scholar

13. Eleventh Annual Report of the Secretary of Commerce (Washington, D.C.: Department of Commerce, 1924), 154Google Scholar; U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations, Appropriations, Department of Commerce, 1929, 70th Cong., 1st sess., 1928, 95–96; George K. Burgess, “Bureau of Standards Cooperation in Industrial Research,” in Ross, ed., Profitable Practice in Industrial Research, 164–67; Seventeenth Annual Report of the Secretary of Commerce (Washington, D.C., 1929), 163.Google Scholar

14. Edward J. Mehrens, “Concrete: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow,” American Concrete Institute pamphlet, February 1935, available at Widener Library, Harvard University; Galambos, Louis, Competition and Cooperation: The Emergence of a National Trade Association (Baltimore, 1966), 121–22Google Scholar; Herbert Hoover, address to National Association of Cotton Manufacturers, 7 April 1925, Hoover papers, “Bible” (speech file), item 466; Hawley, Ellis W., “Three Facets of Hooverian Associationalism: Lumber, Aviation, and Movies,” in McCraw, Thomas K., ed., Regulation in Perspective (Cambridge, Mass., 1981), 101–8Google Scholar; Housing Division memo, undated, 1921, Hoover papers, Commerce series, Box 63, “Building and Housing 1921”; John M. Gries, “Elimination of Waste in Building Industry,” undated, James S. Taylor papers, HHPL, Box 3, “Commerce Department.”

15. Hawley, “Three Facets of Hooverian Associationalism,” 109–14; David D. Lee, “Herbert Hoover and the Development of Commercial Aviation, 1921–1926,” in Krog and Tanner, eds., Herbert Hoover and the Republican Era, 36–65; Roland, Alex, Model Research: The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, 1915–1958 (Washington, D.C., 1985), 51–123Google Scholar; Rosenberg, Nathan and Nelson, Richard R., “American Universities and Technical Advance in Industry,” Research Policy 23 (1993): 329–30.Google Scholar

16. Aitken, Hugh G.J., The Continuous Wave: Technology and American Radio, 1900–1932 (Princeton, 1986)Google Scholar; Rosen, Philip T., The Modern Stentors: Radio Broadcasting and the Federal Government, 1920–1934 (Westport, Conn., 1980)Google Scholar; “Radio Patent and Copyright Questions,” Journal of the Patent Office Society 12 (1930): 327–30Google Scholar; “The RCA Consent Decree,” George Washington Law Review 1 (1933): 513–16.Google Scholar

17. Kohler, Robert E., “Science, Foundations, and American Universities in the 1920s,” Osiris, second series, 3 (1987): 140Google Scholar; Kevles, Daniel J., The Physicists (New York, 1978), 117–54Google Scholar; Hoover, Herbert, “The Nation and Science,” Science 65 (14 January 1927): 26Google Scholar; Willard to Hoover, 10 June 1926, Hoover to Robert A. Millikan, 2 July 1926, and Maurice Holland to Hoover, 5 August 1926, all in Hoover papers, Commerce series, Box 426, “National Academy of Sciences–National Research Endowment-Railroads and Pure Science”; Davis, Lance E. and Kevles, Daniel J., “The National Research Fund: A Case Study in the Industrial Support of Academic Science, Minerva 12 (1974): 207–20.Google Scholar

18. Cochrane, Rexmond C., Measures for Progress (Washington, D.C., 1966), 259–62Google Scholar; Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., Verbatim Record of the Proceedings of the Temporary National Economic Committee (Washington, D.C., 1939), vol. 1, 68.Google Scholar

19. Twenty-first Annual Report of the Secretary of Commerce, 1933 (Washington, D.C., 1933), 45Google Scholar; Science Advisory Board, Report, July 31, 1933-September 1, 1934 (Washington, D.C., 1934), 62–63Google Scholar; Kargon, Robert and Hodes, Elizabeth, “Karl Compton, Isaiah Bowman, and the Politics of Science in the Great Depression,” Isis 76 (1985): 304–5Google Scholar, 309–10; correspondence of Dugald C. Jackson, William Spraragen, and Maurice Holland, 1932, in Dugald C. Jackson papers, MIT Archives (hereafter “Jackson papers”), Box 4, Folders 316–17; “Trade Associations Hit Hard as Depression Breeds III Will,” Business Week, 29 April 1931, 7–8.

20. Karl, Barry D., The Uneasy State: The U.S. from 1915 to 1945 (Chicago, 1983), 81–99Google Scholar; “Plan for Stabilization of Industry by the President of the General Electric Company,” Monthly Labor Review, November 1931, 45–53; “Trade Association Is Keystone of Swope Stabilization Plan,” Business Week, 23 September 1931, 12; “Friendly Critics of Swope Plan Want to See It Given Fair Trial,” Business Week, 30 September 1931, 15; Himmelberg, Robert F., The Origins of the National Recovery Administration: Business, Government, and the Trade Association Issue, 1921–1933 (New York, 1976), 88–165Google Scholar; Hawley, Ellis W., The New Deal and the Problem of Monopoly (Princeton, 1966), 42.Google Scholar

21. “The Country Needs, the Country Demands Bold, Persistent Experimentation,” address, 22 May 1932, in Rosenman, Samuel, ed., Public Papers and Addresses of Franlciin D. Roosevelt vol. 1 (New York, 1938), 639.Google Scholar

22. Himmelberg, The Origins of the National Recovery Administration, 181–218; Hawley, The New Deal and the Problem of Monopoly; Brand, Donald, Corporatism and the Rule of Law (Ithaca, N.Y., 1988).Google Scholar

23. “Patents and the ‘New Deal,’” Journal of the Patent Office Society 16 (1934): 92Google Scholar; Gilfillan, S. C., “A New System for Encouraging Invention,” Journal of the Patent Office Society 17 (1935): 970.Google Scholar

24. Kargon and Hodes, “Karl Compton, Isaiah Bowman, and the Politics of Science in the Great Depression,” 308–10; Pursell, Carroll W. Jr., “The Anatomy of a Failure: The Science Advisory Board, 1933–1935,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 109 (1965): 342–43Google Scholar; Albert L. Barrows, Assistant Secretary, NRC, to R. A. Millikan, 15 July 1933 (with attachment, “Preliminary Science Approach to the Industrial Recovery Program” by Maurice Holland), in Robert A. Millikan papers, California Institute of Technology Archives, File 7.15. I retrieved the Barrows letter thanks to a citation by Kargon and Hodes.

25. NRA Division of Review, “The So-Called Model Code: Its Development and Modification,” 1936, Hagley Museum and Library, Imprints Collection; “Report of the Chairman to the Executive Board for the Period July, 1933-April, 1934,” 25 April 1934, 19, Jackson papers, Box 5, Folder 341; Maurice Holland, “Summary of Analysis … with Recommendations for Future Development,” 5 October 1934, National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Archives, NRC, Engineering and Industrial Research Division, 1934, “Analysis …”

26. “Research and the New Deal,” New York Times, 23 October 1933, 14; “Code Provisions Restricting New Machinery,” Journal of the Patent Office Society 16 (1934): 476–83Google Scholar; Burns, Arthur R., The Decline of Competition: A Study of the Evolution of American Industry (New York, 1936), 465–71Google Scholar, 508–12; Lyon, Leverett S. et al. , The National Recovery Administration: An Analysis and Appraisal, 2d ed. (New York, 1972), 647.Google Scholar

27. Garrett, Garet, “Machine Crisis,” Saturday Evening Post, 12 November 1938, 61Google Scholar; Stern, Bernhard, “Restraints upon the Utilization of Inventions,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, November 1938, 13–32Google Scholar; Jerome, Harry, Mechanisation in Industry (New York, 1934), 18–22.Google Scholar

28. Hawley, The New Deal and the Problem of Monopoly, 227–31; Latham, Earl, The Politics of Railroad Coordination (Cambridge, Mass., 1959).Google Scholar

29. Compton to Holland, 7 September 1933 (Folder 336), Eastman to Holland, 15 September 1933 (Folder 336); Holland to Eastman, 20 September 1933 (Folder 336); Holland, “A Plan for Centralized and Coordinated Railroad Research Organization,” 20 September 1933 (Folder 337); Holland, “Steps in Establishing a Central Scientific Laboratory for Railroad Transportation Industry,” 23 September 1933 (Folder 336); Eastman to Compton, 23 September 1933 (Folder 336); Compton to Jackson, 28 September 1933 (Folder 336); press release, 11 October 1933 (Folder 338), all in Jackson papers, Box 5.

30. Frank Jewett to Jackson, 17 October 1933 (Folder 338); minutes, notes, and statements from committee meeting, 18 December 1933 (Folder 339); Jackson to Jewett, 20 December 1933 (Folder 339); Jewett to Jackson, 29 December 1933 (Folder 339); notes and minutes of committee meeting, 16 January 1934 (Folder 340); notes and minutes of subcommittee meeting, 9 March 1934 (Folder 340); Jewett to committee, 22 June 1934 (Folder 342); Jackson to Jewett, 18 July 1934 (Folder 343); Jewett to Compton, 1 October 1934 (Folder 344), all in Jackson papers, Box 5; Second Report of the Science Advisory Board, September 1, 1934– August 31, 1935 (Washington, D.C., 1935), 459–77.Google Scholar

31. Regulation of Railroads, S. doc. 119, 73d Cong., 2d sess., 1934, 11, 31–33, 50–57; Eastman to Compton, 15 October 1934; Jewett to Jackson, 17 October 1934; Jackson to Jewett, 24 October 1934, all in Jackson papers, Box 5, Folder 344; “Railroad Research,” Business Week, 3 October 1936, 38; U.S. Senate, Committee on Military Affairs, Technological Mobilisation (Washington, D.C., 1943)Google ScholarPubMed, 77th Cong., 2d sess., 305–6.

32. Chase, Stuart, “The New Deal's Greatest Asset,” Nation 142 (10 June 1936), 741Google Scholar; meeting minutes, National Industrial Conference Board, 23 January 1936, 37–38, and 16 May 1935, 29, Acc. 1057, Boxes 7–8, Hagley Museum and Library; Brinkley, Alan, “The New Deal Order and the Idea of the State,” in Fraser, Steve and Gerstle, Gary, eds., The Rise and Fall of the New Deal Order (Princeton, 1989), 85–121Google Scholar, provides a more comprehensive picture of the flight from associationalism.

33. “Proposal for Science-Industry Relationship …,” 13 April 1937, NAS Archives, Institutions-Associations-Individuals, “National Association of Manufacturers, 1937”; Karl T. Compton, “Symposium on Science and Industry,” Review of Scientific Instruments, January 1938, 6–9; Lammot Dupont, “Industry's Outlook,” reprinted in Congressional Record, 75th Cong., 2d sess., 359–60; “Twentieth-Century Pioneers,” Business Week, 2 March 1940, 20.

34. “Make Technical Progress Social Progress,” American Federationist 43 (1936): 682–83Google Scholar; Latham, The Politics of Railroad Coordination, 222–25, 259–65; Gellman, Aaron J., “Surface Freight Transportation,” in Capron, William M., ed., Technological Change in Regulated Industries (Washington, D.C., 1970), 169–78Google Scholar; Hirsh, Richard F., Technology and Transformation in the American Electric Utility Industry (New York, 1989), 36–81.Google Scholar

35. National Research Council, “Research Consciousness Among Leading Industrial Nations (1937), reprinted in Harold Vagtborg, Research in American Industrial Development (New York, 1976); Laurence, William L., “Scientists Open Mellon Institute,” New York Times, 7 May 1937, 15Google Scholar; Laurence, William L., “Mellon Institute,” New York Times, 7 May 1937, 24Google Scholar; Weidlein, E. R., “Broad Trends in Chemical Research, Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, 10 January 1938, 10–11Google Scholar; Hamor, W. A., “Research at the Mellon Institute,” Science 87 (29 April 1938), 360–63.Google Scholar

36. Pursell, Carroll W. Jr., “Science Agencies in World War II: The OSRD and Its Challengers,” in Reingold, Nathan, ed., The Sciences in the American Context: New Perspectives (Washington, D.C., 1979), 360Google Scholar; Bush to Hoover, 10 April 1939, Vannevar Bush papers, Library of Congress, Box 51, File 1261; Bush, Vannevar, Pieces of the Action (Cambridge, Mass., 1970), 35.Google Scholar

37. Reingold, Nathan, “Vannevar Bush's New Deal for Research or the Triumph of the Old Order,” Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 17 (1987): 302Google Scholar; Owens, Larry, “The Counterproductive Management of Science in the Second World War: Vannevar Bush and the Office of Scientific Research and Development,” Business History Review 68 (1994): 515–76Google Scholar; Mindell, David A., “‘Datum for Its Own Annihilation’: Feedback, Control, and Computing, 1916–1945” (Ph.D. diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1996).Google Scholar

38. Sherry, Michael S., The Rise of American Air Power (New Haven, 1987), 187–90Google Scholar; Allen Kaufman, “In the Procurement Officer We Trust: Constitutional Norms, Air Force Procurement, and Industrial Organization, 1938–1947” (paper presented at the Hagley Museum, October 1995), 37–49; Roland, Model Research, 173–98; Zeitlin, Jonathan, “Flexibility and Mass Production at War: Aircraft Manufacture in Britain, the U.S., and Germany, 1939–1945,” Technology and Culture 36 (1995): 46–79.Google Scholar

39. Bush to Roosevelt, 8 April 1942, Records of the War Production Board, National Archives Record Group 179 (hereafter “RG179”), Policy Documentation File (PDF) 027.33, “WPB—Organization–Proposed Units and Committees, 1941–1942;” Leith to Batt, 15 April 1942, RG 179, PDF 073.011; Maverick to Nelson, 29 May 1942, RG179, PDF 282M; Bush to Delano, 22 July 1942, Records of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, National Archives Record Group 227 (hereafter “RG227”), Entry 13, Box 34; Kevles, Daniel J., “The National Science Foundation and the Debate over Postwar Research Policy, 1942–1945,” Isis 68 (1977): 5–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

40. Morris, Peter J. T., The American Synthetic Rubber Research Program (Philadelphia, 1989), 9–17Google Scholar; Chapman, Keith, The International Petrochemical Industry (Cambridge, 1991), 66–82Google Scholar; Bush to Delano, 22 July 1942, RG227, Entry 13, Box 34.

41. Kevles, Daniel J., “Scientists, the Military, and the Control of Postwar Defense Research: The Case of the Research Board for National Security,” Technology and Culture 16 (1975): 20–47Google Scholar; Misa, Thomas J., “Military Needs, Commercial Realities, and the Development of the Transistor, 1948–1958,” in Smith, Merritt Roe, ed., Military Enterprise and Technological Change (Cambridge, Mass., 1985), 253–87Google Scholar; England, J. Merton, A Patron for Pure Science (Washington, D.C., 1982).Google Scholar

42. Griffith, Robert, “Dwight D. Eisenhower and the Corporate Commonwealth,” American Historical Review 87 (1982): 87–122Google Scholar; McConnell, Grant, Private Power and American Democracy (New York, 1966), 255–80Google Scholar; Nelkin, Dorothy, The Politics of Housing Innovation (Ithaca, N.Y., 1971)Google Scholar; “Industrial Innovation Initiatives,” Public Papers of the President, 1979, vol. 2 (Washington, D.C., 1980), 2070–74Google Scholar; “Economic Renewal Program,” Public Papers of the President, 1980, vol. 2 (Washington, D.C., 1982), 1585–91Google Scholar; Krugman, Paul, Peddling Prosperity Economic Sense and Nonsense in tke Age of Diminished Expectations (New York, 1994), 89–95Google Scholar; Stockman, David, The Triumph of Politics: How the Reagan Revolution Failed (New York, 1986), 39–44Google Scholar, 245–253; Smith, Bruce L. E., American Science Policy Since World War II (Washington, D.C., 1990), 132–34.Google Scholar

43. Shoch, James, “Party Competition, Divided Government, and the Politics of Economic Nationalism” (Ph.D. diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1993)Google Scholar; Graham, Otis, Losing Time: The Industrial Policy Debate (Cambridge, Mass., 1992).Google Scholar

44. Shoch, “Party Competition, Divided Government, and the Politics of Economic Nationalism.” A good recent statement of the associative vision is Romer, Paul M., “Implementing a National Technology Strategy with Self-Organizing Industry Investment Boards,” Brookings Papers: Microeconomics, 1993, No. 2, 345–99.Google Scholar

45. Osborne, David, Laboratories of Democracy (Boston, 1988)Google Scholar; Shoch, “Party Competition, Divided Government, and the Politics of Economic Nationalism,” 594–603, 658–62, 679–80; Alic, John A. et al. , Beyond Spinoff: Military and Commercial Technologies for a Changing World (Boston, 1992), 79–80Google Scholar; Bromley, D. Allen, The President's Scientists: Reminiscences of a White House Science Advisor (New Haven, 1994), 122–41Google Scholar; “Industrial R&D Wins Political Favor,” Science 255 (20 March 1992), 1500–1502Google Scholar; Clinton, William J. and Gore, Albert Jr., Technology for America's Economic Growth: A New Direction to Build Economic Strength (Washington, D.C., 1993)Google Scholar; idem, Science in the National Interest (Washington. D.C., 1994); “Committee Clamor Illustrates Extent of Partisan Divide,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report 54 (11 May 1996): 1291–92Google Scholar; Branscomb, Lewis M. and Keller, James H., eds., Investing in Innovation (Cambridge, Mass., 1998).Google Scholar

46. For a discussion of history and its uses in the industrial policy debate, see Gtaham, Losing Time.