No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Comparative Civil Service Statistics: Germany
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
Extract
“Almost no other art requires such high moral qualifications as statistical comparison.” Dr. Arnold Brecht, then Ministerialdirektor in Prussia's state administration, thus prefaced, about three years ago, his Carnegie lecture at the Berlin Hochschule für Politik in which he cautiously analyzed public expenditures in the United States, England, France, and Germany. And he added: “The international comparison of public expenditures should serve only one end—the contest of all countries for the most constructive and lowest expenditures.”
It is a truism that public interest in present-day government centers around the pressing problem of how to achieve an administrative system conducive to the “most constructive and lowest expenditures.”
- Type
- Public Administration
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Political Science Association 1935
References
1 Brecht, Arnold, Internationaler Vergleich der öffentlichen Ausgaben. Grundfragen der Internationalen Politik, No. 2 (Leipzig and Berlin, 1932), p. 5Google Scholar.
2 Ibid.
3 Cf. Verordnung über Finanzstatistik of June 23, 1928 (Reichsgesetzblatt, I, p. 205Google Scholar).
4 For example, England has recently “nationalized” her unemployment relief system (Unemployment Insurance Act of 1934). Cf. Marx, Fritz Morstein, “Whither Local Self-Government?,” Public Management, Vol. 16, pp. 131 ff. (1934)Google Scholar. In Germany, unemployment relief proper remains a function of local government.
5 For example, in Germany the Träger of social insurance (health, old age, invalidity, unemployment) are such separate corporate bodies created ad hoc, and therefore not part of the national administrative structure.
6 Brecht, op. cit., p. 6. Throughout his analysis, Brecht has attempted to verify this “law.”
7 London, 1932.
8 Finer, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 1167.
9 Ibid., p. 1182.
10 Ibid., p. 1167, note 1.
11 Moreover, the increase in the federal civil service for the following fiscal year alone amounted to 21,250. Cf. Forty-seventh Annual Report of the U. S. Civil Service Commission for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 1930, p. 4.
12 Wirtschaft und Statistik, Vol. 10, pp. 650 ff. (1930)Google Scholar.
13 Ibid., p. 650.
14 Reichsgesetzblatt, I, p. 287Google Scholar.
15 Sec. 1 of the Post Finance Act.
16 Sec. 12 (I).
17 Act of August 30, 1924 (Reichsgesetzblatt, II, p. 272Google Scholar).
18 Reichsbahn-Personalgesetz of August 30, 1924 (ibid., p. 287).
19 White, Leonard D., Trends in Public Administration (New York and London, 1933), p. 341Google Scholar.
20 Statistik des Deutschen Reichs, Vol. 408 (1931), p. 87Google Scholar.
21 Ibid., p. 87.
22 Including teachers and uniformed policemen.
23 Wirtschaft und Statistik, Vol. 13, pp. 245–246 (1933)Google Scholar.
24 Ibid., p. 246.
25 Ibid., p. 245.
26 The personnel policy of the Third Reich will probably accentuate this trend. Cf. Heyland, Carl, “Reichsgesetz zur Änderung von Vorschriften auf dem Gebiete des allgemeinen Beamten-, des Besoldungs-, und des Versorgungsrechts vom 30 Juni 1933,” Juristische Wochenschrift, Vol. 62, pp. 1977 ff. (1933)Google Scholar.
27 Wirtschaft und Statistik, Vol. 14, p. 442 (1934)Google Scholar.
28 Ibid., p. 442.
29 Cf. Marx, Fritz Morstein, “German Bureaucracy in Transition,” in this Review, Vol. 28, pp. 467 ff. (1934)Google Scholar.
30 Wirtschaft und Statistik, Vol. 14, p. 444 (1934)Google Scholar.