Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-cjp7w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-30T05:10:26.394Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“Imperialism” in Bureaucracy*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Matthew Holden Jr
Matthew Holden Jr*
Affiliation:
Wayne State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

If an important part of the political scientist's mission is to anticipate and explain “the critical problems that generate turbulence” in that part of the world which attracts his attention, then, in the study of administration, bureaucratic “imperialism” must be of compelling interest. If systematic data directly assembled for the purpose are lacking, and if there are some signal problems of theory which have been little investigated, there is still enough evidence from studies of other political problems that it seems worthwhile to set out some trial-run ideas in the hope that they will elicit further discussion.

Bureaucractic imperialism seems pre-eminently a matter of inter-agency conflict in which two or more agencies try to assert permanent control over the same jurisdiction, or in which one agency actually seeks to take over another agency as well as the jurisdiction of that agency. We are thus primarily concerned with the politics of allocation and shall, except incidentally, bypass some other interesting aspects of inter-agency politics such as cooperation between agencies sharing missions, competition for favorable “one-time-only” decisions which do not involve jurisdictional reallocation, or the critical problems of the “holding company” administrative organization and its internal politics. For the moment, our concern with the politics of allocation leads to a focus on what would appear to be the likely behaviors of those decisionmakers who have both inclination and opportunity to look after the institutional well-being of agencies.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 60 , Issue 4 , December 1966 , pp. 943 - 951
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1966

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 Albert B. Martin, Personal Communication.

2 Cf., Tullock, Gordon, The Politics of Bureaucracy (Washington, D.C.: Public Affairs Press, 1965), pp. 134–136Google Scholar; and Gold, Bela, Wartime Economic Planning in Agriculture (New York: Columbia University Press, 1949), pp. 530–535Google Scholar.

3 Cf., Selznick, Philip, Leadership in Administration (Evanston: Row, Peterson and Company, 1957), p. 11Google Scholar.

4 Emmerick, Herbert, Essays on Federal Reorganization (University, Ala.: University of Alabama Press, 1950), Ch. 2Google Scholar; Fox, Irving K. and Picken, Isabel, The Upstream-Downstream Controversy in the Arkansas-White-Red Basins Survey (ICP, #55) (University, Ala.: University of Alabama Press, 1960)Google Scholar; Huntington, Samuel P., The Common Defense: Strategic Programs in National Politics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961)Google Scholar; Leake, James Miller, “Conflict over Coordination,” this Review, 12 (08 1918), 365–380Google Scholar; Ploss, Sidney I., Conflict and Decision-Making in Soviet Russia (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ridley, F. F., “French Technocracy and Comparative Government,” Political Studies, 14 (02 1966), p. 41CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schiff, Ashley L., Fire and Water: Scientific Heresy in the Forest Service (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1962), Ch. 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schilling, Warner R., Strategy, Politics, and Defense Budgets (New York: Columbia University Press, 1962), pp. 22–24Google Scholar; and Somers, Herman M., Presidential Agency: The Office of War Mobilization and Reconversion (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1950), particularly Ch. 1 and 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 The well-known case of Interior Secretary Ickes' effort to acquire control over the Forest Service is in point: Ickes, Harold L., The Secret Diary of Harold L. Ickes: The First Thousand Days, 1933–1936 (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1953)Google Scholar.

6 Redford, Emmette S., “Perspectives for the Study of Government Regulation,” Midwest Journal of Political Science, 6 (02 1962), pp. 8–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Dimock, Marshall, “Expanding Jurisdictions: A Case Study in Bureaucratic Conflict,” in Merton, Robert K., et al, Reader in Bureaucracy (Glencoe: Free Press, 1952), pp. 282–291Google Scholar.

7 For a pertinent contribution, see Evan, William M., “Toward a Theory of Inter-Organizational Behavior,” Management Science, 11 (08 1965), B217–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Health, Education, and Welfare, and Housing and Urban Development are, at the federal level, particularly good examples of “holding company” organizations lacking an integrating goal or mythology.

9 Long, Norton E., The Polity (edited by Press, Charles) (Chicago: Rand, McNally and Company, 1960)Google Scholar, Chapter 4, remains the best statement on this point; alao Kaufman, Herbert, “Organization Theory and Political Theory,” this Review, 58 (03, 1964), p. 12 and note 9 at the same pageGoogle Scholar.

10 We recall that the “sphere of competence” is an essential criterion of the “administrative organ” as defined in Weber, Max, Theory of Social and Economic Organization (Glencoe: Free Press and Falcon's Wing Press, 1947), p. 330Google Scholar.

11 Thompson, Victor A., The Regulatory Process in OPA Rationing (New York: King's Crown Press, 1950)Google Scholar, makes this point by noting the indisposition of the OPA's Gasoline Eligibility Committee to grab jurisdiction.

12 Selznick, Philip, TVA and the Grass Roots (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1949)Google Scholar.

13 The interpretation is my own, but the evidence is presented in Carper, Edith T., “Lobbying and the Natural Gas Bill,” in Bock, Edwin A. and Campbell, Alan K. (eds.), Case Studies in American Government (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1962), pp. 178–184Google Scholar.

14 Willbern, York Y., “Administrative Control of Petroleum Production,” in Redford, Emmette S. (ed.), Public Administration and Policy Development (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1956), pp. 3–50Google Scholar.

15 The statute is H.B. No. 24 of the 57th Legislature, First-Called Session, codified as Article 7621d, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes. It is reprinted in: U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Government Operations, Subcommittee on Natural Resources and Power, Hearings on Water Pollution Control and Abatement (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1965), Part 6, p. 3579et seq.Google Scholar

16 This recitation of the facts is based upon Board briefs filed in litigation. Since it is of considerable importance and apparently nowhere rebutted, we assume its accuracy.

17 Opinion No. WW-1465, October 31, 1962, as reprinted in House Committee on Government Operations, op. cit., pp. 3586 et seq.

18 Sayre, Wallace S. and Kaufman, Herbert, Governing New York City (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1965), pp. 285–292Google Scholar; Westley, William, “Secrecy and the Police,” Social Forces, 34 (03 1956), 254–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Westley, , “Violence and the Police,” American Journal of Sociology, 59 (07 1953), 34–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kephart, William, Racial Factors in Urban Law Enforcement (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1959)Google Scholar; and Kempton, Murray, “The Cop as Idealist: The Case of Stephen P. Kennedy,” Harper's Magazine (03 1962), 66–71Google Scholar.

19 Gaus, John M., Reflections on Public Administration (University, Ala.: University of Alabama Press, 1947), Chapter 1Google Scholar; Kaufman, op. cit.; Long, op. cit. Ch. 10; Riggs, Fred W., The Ecology of Administration (London: Asia Publishing House, 1961)Google Scholar; and Redford, “Perspectives for the Study of Government Regulation,” op. cit., pp. 4–5, all embody literary formulations of the idea of ecology in administration. Evan, op. cit., has contributed a more precise statement in the notion of the “organization-set.”

20 On levels of uncertainty, see Holden, Matthew Jr., “Committee Politics under Primitive Uncertainty,” Midwest Journal of Political Science, 9 (08 1965), 236–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 White, Leonard D., The Federalists (New York: The Macmillan Comany, 1956)Google Scholar, particularly Chapter 18.

22 Pye, Lucian W., Politics, Personality, and Nation-Building (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1962), Chs. 15, 16Google Scholar.

23 This seems to me the conclusion supportable by Somers, op. cit., on economic administration during World War II.

24 See, for example, Goldner, Leslie, “Air Pollution Control in the Metropolitan Boston Area: A Case Study in Public-Policy. Formulation,” in Wolozin, Harold (ed.), The Economics of Air Pollution (New York: W. W. Norton and Company, Inc.), 1966, p. 137, n. 11Google Scholar.

25 In this respect, the idea that there is “ordinarily little or no limit to the amount of inaction an organization can ‘undertake’ [because] inaction does not absorb resources” seems in error. See March, James G. and Simon, Herbert A., Organizations (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958), p. 175Google Scholar.

26 Selznick, , Leadership in Administration, p. 11Google Scholar.

27 Clawson, Marion, The Public Lands (Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future, Inc. and American Forestry Association, 1965), Part 5Google Scholar.

28 Hart, Henry C., The Dark Missouri (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1957), Ch. 7Google Scholar.

29 See the “Introduction” by Colm, Gerhard in Lecht, Leonard A. (ed.), Goals, Priorities, and Dollars (New York: Free Press, 1966), pp. 1–16Google Scholar.

30 Cf. Hammond, Paul Y., “Foreign Policy-Making and Administrative Politics,” World Politics, 17 (07 1965), 656–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Hitch, Charles J., Decision-Making for Defense (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1965)Google Scholar.

31 For a case demonstration, see Rourke, Francis E., “The Politics of Administrative Organization,” Journal of Politics, 19 (08 1957) 461–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 For a sympathetic reconsideration by an economist-systems analyst, see McKean, Roland N., “The Unseen Hand in Government,” American Economic Review, 60 (06 1965), 496–506Google Scholar; and McKean, , “Limitations, Risks, and Problems,” in Novick, David G. (ed.), Program Budgeting (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965), pp. 295–296Google Scholar.

33 The practical irrelevance of regio-centric approaches is evident when one reviews discussions of the problems of the President—indubitably the public figure most like a king. Neustadt, Richard E., Presidential Power: The Politics of Leadership (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1960)Google Scholar; and, Sorenson, Theodore, Decision-Making in the White House (New York: Columbia University Press, 1963)Google Scholar.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.