Study of Public Administration (Classic Reprint)

It is government in action, and one might very naturally expect to find that government in action had arrested the attention and provoked the scrutiny of writers of politics very early in the history of systematic thought. But such was not the case. No one wrote systematically of administration as a branch of the science of government until the present century had passed its first youth and had begun to put forth its characteristic flower of systematic knowledge. Up to our own day all the political writers whom we now read had thought, argued, dogmatized only about the constitution of government; about the nature of the state, the essence and seat of sovereignty, popular power and kingly prerogative; about the greatest meanings lying at the heart of government, and the high ends set before the purpose of government by mans nature and mans aims. The central field of controversy was that great field of theory in which monarchy rode tilt against democracy, in which oligarchy would have built for itself strongholds of privilege, and in which tyranny sought opportunity to make good its claim to receive submission from all competitors. A midst this high warfare of principles, administration could command no pause for its own consideration. The question was always: Who shall make law, and what shall that law be? The other question, how law should be administered with enlightenment, with equity, with speed, and without friction, was put aside as practical detail which clerks could arrange after doctors had agreed upon principles. That political philosophy took this direction was of course no accident, no chance preference of perverse whim of political philosophers. The philosophy of any time is, as Hegel says, nothing but the spirit of that time expressed in abstract thought ;and political philosophy, like philosophy of every other kind, had only held up the mirror
(Typographical errors above are due to OCR software and don't occur in the book.)