No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
“Reflections of a Law Professor on Instruction and Research in Public Administration”: An Exchange
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 August 2014
Extract
Teachers of public administration will welcome the challenging and provocative article of Professor Kenneth Culp Davis, “Reflections of a Law Professor on Instruction and Research in Public Administration,” which appeared in the September issue of the Review. It is my purpose to reply to some of his criticisms, to agree with him in some regards, and to discuss some of the issues which he raises. I am in entire agreement with him about the merits of the case method in teaching public administration, and I imagine that there would be little disagreement by other teachers of the subject, though as yet the collection and publication of cases suitable for undergraduate instruction has not reached the point where the use of texts of the conventional type may be discontinued. One of the first efforts to prepare and publish cases on public administration was undertaken fifteen years ago by the Committee on Public Administration of the Social Science Research Council when I was a member of its staff, and resulted in three volumes which were published in 1940 and the following years. The Stein collection is a vast improvement over the earlier case studies, and is being widely used, particularly in graduate courses. The cases were produced by the cooperative efforts of teachers of public administration at a number of leading universities.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Political Science Association 1954
References
page 176 note 1 Roncarelli v. Duplessis, 1.D.L.R. 680 (1952) (Quebec Superior Ct., 1951).
page 181 note 1 P. 733.
page 182 note 2 White, , Introduction to the Study of Public Administration, 3d ed. (New York, 1948), p. 575 Google Scholar.
page 182 note 3 For a collection of authorities, see Davis, , Administrative Law (St. Paul, 1951), pp. 801–7Google Scholar.
page 182 note 4 Professor Harris is wrong in assuming “that public officials of all ranks are subject to the law, and that their acts are reviewable by the courts.” For a collection of judicial decisions, mostly of the Supreme Court of the United States, concerning administrative action which is not judicially reviewable, see Davis, , Administrative Law, pp. 812–67Google Scholar.
Professor Harris lumps together tort liability of government and tort liability of officers, as if there were no difference.
page 182 note 5 Furthermore, Professor Harris misses the crucial fact that Dicey and White were not discussing merely the Prime Minister but “every official, from the Prime Minister down….”
page 183 note 6 Report, p. 41.
page 183 note 7 Report, p. 230.
page 183 note 8 Professor Harris says that criticism of the Committee “for failure to make intensive research studies, which it never claimed to make,” is unjustified, because the Committee's research staff “were specifically instructed not to conduct research studies.” The Committee considered that the Report was based upon what the Committee itself at page viii of the printed Report called “research studies.”
page 183 note 9 Professor Harris' statements about the 1938 Act creating the CAA are not in accord with the Act, which is printed at pages 973–1030 of volume 52 of the United States Statutes at Large. For instance, he says that the Administrator was “made directly responsible to the President and largely independent of the regulatory body, though placed within the Authority.” His statement is inconsistent with many provisions, including §§201 (b), 204(a), 206, 302(c), 305, and 308. For instance, §206: “The Authority shall make an annual report to the Congress….” The only requirement for a report by the Administrator is §308, which provides: “The Administrator shall exercise … such powers and duties … as may, from time to time, be assigned to him by the Authority…. The Authority may request the Administrator to make reports to it of his work under this Act.”
page 184 note 10 The Hoover Commission Report (New York, 1949), p. 429 Google Scholar.
page 184 note 11 If, as Professor Harris says, the question is one of “interpretation of the spirit of the Constitution,” his position has no support in any Supreme Court opinion, and scores of Supreme Court decisions are against him.
page 184 note 12 Task Force Report on Regulatory Commissions, pp. 25–26 (1949). It is regrettable that the monographs of the task force have not been printed and that only a limited number were mimeographed, for the literature of political science suffers for want of the information contained in them.