The economic, social, and political development of newly independent nations depends upon the prior or concurrent strengthening of public administration. To be sure, the path of national development is a circular one as it traces a spiral ascent in which a step forward in one kind of development makes possible the next step in another. The administrative arc of this circle is here emphasized not because it is more basic than the others, but because it has often been slighted. New governments, often on the recommendation of technical-assistance advisors, adopt excellent programs in health, agriculture, education, and industry, but then fail to translate these programs from paper to action. The fault is not lack of earnest intent but the burden of an unresponsive and weak administrative system.

The appearance of the second Hoover Commission reports is an invitation to attempt to place them in the context of official and unofficial efforts over the past quarter century to give order and meaning to the study of public administration and of its leading example, our national administration. The object here is more than bibliographical, and if it seems ambitious it can hardly be more so than the Commission's own work. No previous study has been so amply financed, or has employed so many people, or has enjoyed such official and public relations support, in and out of government, as this one. What do the reports have to contribute, to knowledge and to policy about organization?

Along with its obligations to train men and women to serve as useful citizens, to carry on the cultural heritage of the past, and to take their places as productive members of private professions and occupations, the American university recognizes a responsibility to train students for service in federal, state, and local governments. The dimensions of this responsibility are best illustrated by the finding in 1939 that of the men graduates of the University of Minnesota between 1928 and 1936, 41.3 per cent either were or had been in government employment; for the women graduates, the proportion was 66 per cent.

A relatively small proportion of students find their way into the judiciary through the avenue of law-school training and practice of the law. Another small proportion become legislators through a variety of avenues, but with the law schools again predominant in the training. The bulk of university graduates who are public servants will be found in administrative agencies. Consequently, undergraduate training for the public service places its principal emphasis on the training of students to contribute effectively as officers and employees of administrative agencies. The university, therefore, is obligated to acquaint students with the opportunities for administrative service and to guide them into courses that will prepare them for such service.

Transference to administrative agencies of powers traditionally associated with legislatures and with courts has destroyed old categories of political science, and necessitates a reappraisal of the structure of American governments. The story of the growth of quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers has been told too well to require extensive treatment here. With the development of the social service state, the legislatures, we are informed, have been illequipped to legislate in detailed fashion because of the quantity and the technicality of governmental activities and because of the need for flexibility and adaptability in the conduct of those activities. Two other reasons for delegation of legislative power may be advanced. The legislature may wish to devolve the responsibility of self-government on a particular industry or vocational group. Or again, it may desire to wash its hands of a particularly trying problem of public policy, and this it can do by turning the problem over to an administrative agency.

The central problem of the administrative structure of government is that of defining administrative jurisdictions. It is only by carefully describing the spheres of activity of organization units and of their employees that responsibility for administrative errors can readily be located. If duties are clearly defined, and if the relations of particular units to other agencies are generally understood, offending units, together with their responsible personnel, may be called to task for failure to perform their assigned duties or for trespass on the spheres of others. The patency of these facts has led American students of federal administration to devote considerable attention to functional jurisdictions. During the past generation there have been a multitude of proposals for the reallocation of functions among the bureaus, departments, and independent establishments of the federal government. Intent upon these functional concerns, American students have denied or ignored the importance of the territorial definition of jurisdictions.