000			03187naa a2200229uu 4500
001			0052811163837
003			OSt
005			20240305160315.0
008			100528s1998 xx ||||gr |0|| 0 eng d
100	1		_910279 _a Spicer, Michael W.
245	1	0	_aThe science of administration, the founders, and theories of political association
260			_aNew York : _bMarcel Dekker, _c1998
520	3		_aDrawing on the work of Michael Oakeshott, this paper seeks to examine the theory of political association underlying Luther Gulick and L. Urwick's Papers on the Science of Administration and to contrast this theory with that underlying the Constitution. It is argued that the authors of the Papers clearly viewed the state as a form of purposive association whereas the Founders of the Constitution in large part saw the state as a form of civil association. This explains the difficulties that reformers such as Gulick faced in realizing their vision of administration within our constitutional framework.
520	3		_aLuther Gulick and L. Urwick's Papers on the Science of Administration (1) represent one of the most important attempts at a synthesis of doctrines in the field of public administration prior to World War II. While the Papers exhibit a variety of approaches and views, they are best known for those authors who, like Gulick and Urwick themselves, took a more classical approach to administration. Such an approach rests on a belief in the virtues of hierarchy and centralization of authority and power in the chief executive; a belief in efficiency as the central value of administration; a belief that there must exist certain principles for good administration applicable to all organizations, regardless of institutional setting; and a belief that such principles are susceptible to empirical scientific discovery and verification. These doctrines, expounded so forcefully in the Papers, formed the basis for the administrative reform movement of the time including the President's Committee on Administrative Management, of which Gulick himself was a member. Indeed, the Papers continue to strongly influence modern efforts at administrative reform.(2)
520	3		_aThe purpose of this article is to examine the particular vision of political association which seems to underlie the Papers, and to compare it with the vision of political association which guided the Founders of the Constitution. In doing so, the article will draw upon the political thinking of the late Michael Oakeshott, a British political theorist and philosopher. I shall argue that there is a tension between the vision of political association held by the authors of the Papers and that held by the Founders, and that this tension explains the failure of administrative reformers to reshape the administrative state along the lines of classical public administration doctrines.
590			_aVolume 21
590			_aNumbers 2-4
773	0	8	_tInternational Journal of Public Administration - IJPA _g21, 2-4, p. 299-321 _dNew York : Marcel Dekker, 1998 _xISSN 01900692 _w
942			_cS
998			_a20100528 _b1116^b _cDaiane
998			_a20100531 _b1622^b _cCarolina
999			_aConvertido do Formato PHL _bPHL2MARC21 1.1 _c33734 _d33734
041			_aeng