Wolfgang Sei be I

Beyond Bureaucracy-Public Administration as Political Integrator and Non-Weberian Thought in Germany

The politieal role ofpublie administration holds an While Weber's notion of public administration as ambiguous status in publie administration theory. The "bureaucracy" may appear underpolitieized, public dominant paradigms ofthe diseipline ojfer more or less administration presents itself as an overpoliticized negative perspeetives. Max webers notion ofbureaueracy phenomenon in the public choiee perspective. eoneeives publie administration as the apolitieal tool of Viewed through these lenses, the pressing issues of government, while the publie ehoiee sehool eoneeives it public administration are those of performance and as the realm ofindividual seljishness and rent seeking at control for the sake of accountabiliry and poliey taxpayers' expense. In this unfavorable epistemologieal outcome improvement. Ir is about principal-agent environment, positive eoneepts ofwhat makes publie problems, performance measurement, organizational administration "politieal" ean hardly flourish. However, learning, and public management. This obviously as publie authorities may organize shapes the perception patterns clientele partieipation and and research agendas of scholars eonsequently eo-opt stakeholders, The political role of public in the field. The political role they provide flr symbolie sense administration is unevenIy of pllblic administration is making and ereate patterns of represented in mainstream unevenly represented in main­ identity. Publie administration public administration stream public administration thus works as a politieal theory and research. Issues of theory and research. integrator in its own right. governance and administra- Unfortunately, this subject is not Issues of governance and tive performance are overrep­ prominent within eontemporary administrative performance resented, while issues of civil seholarly research. German are overrepresented, while rights protection or political politieal integration through issues of civil rights protection integration, for instance, playa administration is analyzed here in or political integration, for minor role. order to address these and related instance, playa minor role. theoretieal questions. In this unfavorable epistemo- logical environment, positive he political role of public administration concepts of what makes public administration holds an ambiguous status in public admin­ "political" can hardly flourish. Political integration T istration theory. The dominant paradigms of throllgh administration is a case in point. Ir is undeni­ the discipline give a more or less negative account. able that public administration provides for various Max Weber's notion ofbureaucracy conceives public degrees of civic involvement and participation beyond administration as the apolitieal tool of government. elections. Ir also symbolizes government in everyday It is, in hi s conception, the "purely bureaucratic, life, thus encouraging or discouraging the overall thus bureaucratic-monocratic, document-based loyalry of the citizenry. Organizational bodies in the administration" that guarantees "the highest degree of public realm are able to mobilize the support of their performance" as the "formally most rational type of sociopolitical environment. They do this, for example, authority" (Weber 1922, 128). ll1e contending para­ through the participation of their clientele, through digm, the public choiee or economics of bureaucracy the co-optation of stakeholders, through symbolic school (Downs 1967; Niskanen 1971), conceives i t sense making, or through the creation of patterns of as the realm of individual selfishness and rent seek­ identity. In this respect, public administration works ing at taxpayer's expense under the veil of informa­ as a political integrator in its own right. As such, tion asymmetries and infested by principal-agent however, it is not a prominent subject of scholarly pathologies. research.

719 Public administration as a political integrator does have its theoreti­ appropriate understanding of the peculiarities of the political and cal points of reference, but they are scattered and not necessarily organizational modernization of government in Germany, but also related to the public realm. Chester Barnard, Herbert A. Simon, for the political role of public administration in general. Philip Selznick, and J. Donald Kingsley in various ways emphasized the tole of formal organization as an integrative phenomenon. The German Pattern: Integrating Challenging Focusing on the balance of inducements and contributions Groups through Public Administration (Barnard, Simon), on the prerequisites of individual commitment While it is commonplace that the history of German government to organizational goals (Selznick), or on the representative function and administration was shaped by territorial fragmentation, the of bureaucracy (Kingsley), these authors stress the mutual depend­ countermovement of administrative modernization has not attracted ence of organizational cohesion and integrative capacity. With the very much attention among historians, let alone students of public exception of Selznick, however, the inRuence of these schools of administration. Driven by the necessity of organizing and financing thought remained Iimited or unfolded in the research on business standing armies after the traumatic experience with the devastating administration. effects of mercenary armies during the ll1irty Years' War, profes­ sional bureaucracies emerged in key states of Germany from the late Ir is here that the German tradition of public administration seventeenth century on. Full implementation of constitutionalism, thought is different, precisely because the history of German public however, was substantially delayed compared to the United States administration is different. Public administration in Germany and to Great Britain and France, the two most politically and eco- served as a political integrator long before nomically advanced countries in Europe. parties and parliaments emerged. Ir was even conceived as such as an alternative to consti­ Public administration in The basis of this development was a combi­ tutional government in the early nineteenth Germany served as a political nation of administrative efficiency and the century (cf. Koselleck 1%7). The irony is integrator long before parties integration of challenging societal groups. The that, while students of public administration and parliaments emerged. prerequisite for a standing army was the loy­ around the world will identif}r the alty of the aristocracy. Standing armies of the German contribution to the field in the work Crown were the natural enemy of the landed of Max Weber, the science of public administration in Germany is aristocracy all over Europe. In France and England, the conRict was much more inRuenced by non-Weberian thought, which explicidy solved violendy, with either the Crown wielding absolute power addresses the very political role ofbureaucracy that Weber either over the expenses of the aristocracy (France) or parliament acting neglected or rejected. as the arbiter to balance the power of the Crown and the nobility (England). In Russia, the tsars guaranteed the ownership role of the The present paper is devoted to this non-Weberian thought in landed nobility while stripping the latter of its local political power. German administrative science and its contribution to a positive theory of political integration. Its message is that a particular What characterized this situation in Germany-Prussia in trajectory of political and administrative modernization made non­ particular-was a peaceful compromise between the Crown and Weberian thought heavily inRuential in shaping the notion of pub­ the landed nobility, with the latter keeping both landownership lic administration in Germany. Lorenz von Stein, Otto Hintze, and and loeal political and administrative power while conceding to the RudolfSmend are portrayed as Weber's most important contend­ Crown the exclusive right to run a standing army and to levy taxes ers. Their work became important precisely because it was better to finance it. Officer ranks were manned by the sons of the landed adapted to the peculiarities of political and administrative modern i­ aristocracy, typieally the younger ones who were not entided to zation than Weber's ideal-typical concept ofbureaucracy. inherit the estate. This arrangement guaranteed that the army would not be used to oppress the nobility while securing the loyalty of the • Lorenz von Stein (1815-90) portrayed public administration latter to the Crown. Ir also enabled the landed aristocraey to keep as the "working state," a living organism instead of just a tool of expanded estates intaet, as male heirs were not forced to partition government, thus laying the groundwork for conceiving the state the property. Rather, the eo-optation of the landed aristoeracy into apparatus as a socially embedded entity. the army e1evated the prestige of the armed forees while enabling • Otto Hintze (1861 - 1940) gave the most exhaustive empiri­ aristoerats who were not entided to inherit to keep an e1evated social cal analysis of the integrative role of public administration when status and an inRuential role in running the Crown's government. charaeterizing the co-optation of the landed aristocraey into the ll1e sys tem also had a positive impact on agrieultural produetiv- Crown's army and administration as aprerequisite of stable gov­ ity, as eultivated ground was not unnecessarily compartmentalized, ernment in early modern Germany. whieh, in turn, strengthened the economic basis of the military and • RudolfSmend (1882- 1975), finally, addressed the entire its administrative infrastrueture. maehinery of government as an integrative meehanism emphasiz­ ing, among other things, the mutual adjustment of administrative Moreover, the landed aristocraey remained in charge of loea l admin­ decision making and what he termed the "spirit of the public" istration. This was known as "patrimonial rule" (Patrimonialgewalt) , ( Geist des Publikums). which encompassed the responsibility of the head of the local noble family for the entire range of administrative affairs, including the Stein, Hintze, and Smend, therefore, cover both structural and appointment of priests. In the eastern provinees of Prussia, the head idea tional elements of political integration through public admin­ of county administration (Landrat) was a member of the loeal nobil­ istration. ll1is is what makes their work important not just for an ity unril 19) 8 01' even until 1945. ll1e Landrat was a representative

720 of the Crown and of local self-administration at the same time. materializadon of the rule of law. Both Hegel and Weber made the The Crown's aurhority in its pure form, however, stopped at the legitimacy of state power a focal point of their theories. I However, regional level of the district administration (Regierungsbezirk) wirh Hegel connected legitimate state power to the abstract notion of the a district commissioner (Regierungspräsident) at irs top. Until1918, representation of a universal common good, while Weber focused the Regierungspräsident, too, was a member of the nobility. Thus, on the legitimizing effect of formallegality. To that extent, both the landed aristocracy as a potentially challenging group opposing Hegel and Weber were representatives of the "rationalist" school the Crown was firmly integrated into the Crown's administrative of thought in public administration, which neglected the "organi­ machinery. dst" perspective on the state as an organizational phenomenon (cf. Waldo 1961). Accordingly, the actual quality of German public ad­ What was initiated as a compromise between the Crown and the ministration in achieving not only organizational effectiveness and landed nobility in the seventeenth century turned into a combina­ coherence but also the political integration of challenging sodetal tion of central and local administration, based on professional bu­ groups was beyond their theoretical grasp. reaucracy as its backbone, that has shaped the structure of German public administration until today. ll1is is of obvious importance However, Hegel's notion of the state as the epitome of reason when it comes to an appropriate understanding of how German provided a blueprint for a reintegrative myth: precisely because the public administration works and how its political and organizational structure of German government and administration was strongly qualities have been reBected in German administrative sdence. decentralized and designed to enhance local adaptability as weil as Organizationally, the system combined the strength ofhierarchical micropolitical integration, a unifYing idea of the nation-state, based coordination through the central aurhority of the Crown with the on reason and the rule of law, was an important countervailing fac­ adaptability oflocal self-administration. Politically, it established tor. As Christopher C1ark pointed out in his seminal study on the an equilibrium between the central aurhority. of the state and the "Iron Kingdom" (Prussia), it was the "apotheosis of the state" (2006, main challenging group at the time, the landed nobility (cf. Skocpol 427-35) that made Hegel's theory so weil suited to the character­ 1979,99-112, for an account especially on the counterrevolution­ istics of a decentralized and territorially dispersed state structure. ary effect in Prussia). Hegel's theory of the state reminded dvil servants tu give their best for the sake of the state as the true representative of both reason and 'flle use of public administration as a polidcal integrator has re­ a quasi-religious commitment tu the unselfish fulfillments of duty. mained a crudal feature of German public administration undl the Moreover, Hegel's theory was based on the idea that the state was present day, with a proven record of adaptability throughout several embedded in dvil sodety and, indeed, was the prime representa­ phases of emerging challenging groups and state response. Once tive of the ethical substance of the people as dtizens. This, in turn, established as the organizational form of compromise between the reminded the dominant aristucracy of their duty in terms of loyalty Crown and the landed nobility, this panern was also instrumental while at the same time legitimating their power and inBuence. Thus, in integrating the emerging dass of the bourgeoisie from the early Hegel's theory was characteristically ambivalent, as it contained nineteenth century on, and it even helped mitigate the conBict both progressive and conservative elements as far as the relationship between the authoritarian state and the working dass that emerged between dtizens, civil service, the state, public administration, and at the end of the nineteenth century. The emphasis on peripheral dvil sodety was concerned. adaptability and self-administration established a framework that shielded the core of the state against various challenges. To a consid­ Hegel's notion of the state, however, remained abstract in the sense erable extent, this explains the resilience with which German state­ that neither the actual organization of government and administra­ hood responded not only to fundamental domestic opposition, but tion in the German territories nor the nature of the bureaucratic also to phases of total political breakdown at the brink of ultimate organization as such became part of it. Weber's theory of modern disintegration in the twentieth century (cf. SeibelI996). bureaucracy, by contrast, did focus on the organizational nature of the state, but it did not pay attention to the empirical variance of Hegel's and Weber's Notions of State and Bureaucracy: bureaucracy and how it was linked to political integration. Inappropriate and Functional at the Same Time Ironically, the very structural strength of German government and Instead, Weber's interest focused on the inherent logic of an ideal- administration, based on its integrative capac- typical organization called "bureaucracy" that ity and local adaptability, was not reBected in was not connected tu the actual develop­ the most prominent and inBuential conceptu­ lronically, the very structural menr of German public administration. ll1at alizations of modern statehood: Hegel's theory strength of German government logic, according to Weber, was based on the of the state and Weber's theory of bureaucracy. and administration, based on rationalization of power in the double sense Hegel did not use the word "bureaucracy," its integrative capacity and local of formallegitimacy of political rule and the but he conceived the state, and thus govern­ adaptability, was not reflected effective implementation of the legidmate ment and administration, as the incarnation will of the rulers. What became known as the in the most prominent and of reason as long as it justly applied the law typical elements of bureaucratic organiza­ and as long the individual members of the influential conceptualization tion- hierarchy, legality, professionalism, governmental apparatus-read: the bureau­ of modern statehood: Hegel's fixed monetary sa laries, lifelong appointmenr crats-were commined to that universal idea theory of the state and Weber's of civil servants, se paration of office and per­ (Hegcl 1821,406-512). ll1is corresponded theory of bureaucracy. son, fixed division of labor, written rules, and to Weber's concept ofbureaucracy as the wrinen communication-was connected to

721 two basic ideas: that "bureaucracy" is a type of authoritf and that [The Organic Notion of Administration]). The problem with mere it is the most efficient and effective variant of authority.3 This was a deeds, according to Von Stein, is that the state (read: government) nonempirical, ideal-typical concept (cf. Mayntz 1%5) that did not typically fulfills a "deed" in the form of issuing a law, pronouncing contain the slightest reference to the actual relevance of bureaucracy an indictment, or making another type of decision. But the state for the organization of public authority in recent German history. is unable to lead an actuallife merely on the basis of aseries of individual decisions. Just as the actuallife of a person is based on As a consequence, prominent and vividly debated as it was in executing decisions in the form of work, the actuallife of the state, German academia, Weber's notion ofbureaucracy had no particu­ according to Von Stein, is based on administration. Thus, adminis­ lar impact on doctrine building in German administrative science. tration is the actuallife of the state as a working state (1865, 24) . We may assume that the main reason for Weber's Iimited practical inRuence was the gap between his ideal-typical characterization Ir is easy to comprehend why the metaphor of the working state ofbureaucracy and the way in which public administration in became attractive for students of public administration, especially Germany actually organized both legitimate authority and societal in the German-speaking scholarly community. In the writings integration. "Bureaucracy" in Weber's sense was profoundly apoliti­ ofLorenz von Stein, the Hegelian state appeared not just as an cal. Ir was just executing the political will of those in power on a abstract principle, but as a Iiving reality termed "administration" legal basis. This was more or less the opposite of the actual role of (Verwaltung). For those engaged in empirical research on German public administration as a political integrator that characterized the public administration, this was and still is a more inRuential concept German condition. of administration than Weber's ideal-typical notion ofbureauc- racy. While it would be an exaggeration to speak of two schools of Weber's Contenders: Lorenz von Stein, thought in German administrative science-one following Lorenz Otto Hintze, and Rudolf Smend von Stein's idea of the working state and the other following Weber's Much eloser to the role of public administration as a political concept of bureaucracy-German scholars in various disciplines integrator is the work of Lorenz von Stein (1815-90), Weber's most who define themselves as "administrative scientists" (Verwaltungswis­ prominent contender in the history of rclated ideas. The reception senschaftler) do this principally with reference to Lorenz von Stein of Lorenz von Stein and the widespread reference to hirn in German rather than to Weber. administrative science is characterized by so me bizarre peculiarities, though. First, the Vienna-based professor of law Lorenz Stein, en­ Inherent in this was always the risk of a benevolent overinterpreta­ nobled in 1868 as Lorenz von Stein, is often mistaken, even in Ger­ tion ofLorenz von Stein and his actual contribution to the un­ many and Austria, for Heinrich Friedrich Karl vom und zum Stein derstanding of public administration.4 Ir certainly did not provide (1757-1831), the Prussian minister and mastermind of administra­ any enduring theoretical stimulation other than the intelligible tive reform in Prussia in the early nineteenth century. Second, the metaphor of the "working state." Lorenz von Stein len us with an frequency with which Von Stein is cited as one of the founding eight-volume Handbook 0/Administrative Science (Handbuch der fathers of modern German administrative science stands in stark Verwaltungslehre), wh ich contained the essence of good practice contrast to the paucity of his actual conception on public adminis­ recommendations for the entire variety of public administration do­ tration. Third, and tellingly, the vast majority of scholars who praise mains that turned out to be obsolete by the time the opulent series Lorenz von Stein and his understanding of public administration was finally published (1866-84). Von Stein enthusiasts pointed to refer to a single notion, the "working state" (arbeitender Staat). Just his understanding of state and society as mutually penetrating phe­ as Hegel's notion of the state as the actual materialization of reason nomena (cf. Blasius and Pankoke 1977; Scheuner 1977). However, served as a reintegrative myth that was helpful for organizing the this remained a vague concept. Lorenz von Stein, also a learned coherence of a decentralized and territorially dispersed administra­ student of socialist and communist movements in France, was tive structure, Lorenz von Stein's notion of the working state serves remarkably negligent regarding the social fOl'ces that had formed the as the keyword of non-Weberian rhetoric in German administra­ actual shape of German public administration since the seventeenth tive science. In the absence of a coherent theory of the working century. 'TIle career of the metaphor of the working stare, however, state, however, many students of public administration, Germans remained unaffected by the theoretical and empirical insensitivity of in particular, have ascribed to that notion almost any property of its creator. public administration that is not strictly and directly connected to its formal and legal side. Paradoxically, the scholar who significantly shaped our understand­ ing of German public administration and its political-sociological Vague as it was from the very outset and blurry as it became in embeddedness is much less known than Lorenz von Stein, even the course of its reception in administrative science literature, Von in Germany, despite the tremendous richness of his empirical Stein's notion of the working state has a rational core. In his most observations on German government and administration in early inRuential monograph, Verwaltungslehre und Verwaltungsrecht (Ad­ modern history. The historian 0[[0 Hintze (1861-1940) did not ministrative Science and Administrative Law, 1865), Von Stein re­ coin any prominent notion of statehood or administration, nor did fers to Hegel's notion of the juristic personality (Rechtspersönlichkeit) he develop a school of thought comparable to that of the famous of the state. He maintains that taking that personality seriously German historians of the nineteenth century, such as Leopold von implies taking the actuallife of the personality of the state seriously Ranke, Theodor Mommsen, or Heinrich Treitschke. However, what as weil. And just as the actuallife of an actual person, the actuallife we know about both the formation of public administration in of the state is characterized by the distinction of deed and work modern German history and its political and societal embeddedness (Von Stein 1865,21-26, "Der organ ische Begriff der Verwaltung" we know largely through the work of 0[[0 Hintze. There is hardly

722 any other prominent scholar in the humanities in Germany since level as a sort of buffer zone between the Crown the landed estates, the mid-nineteenth century, including Max Weber, whose work is mediating between antagonistic interests and securing overall even remotely as extensively devoted to public administration and coherence of the state apparams at the same time. Hintze also gave the emergence of modern bureaucracy as the work of Otto Hintze. an account of the gradual containment of the quasi-parliamentary In a way, Hintze is Weber's counterpart in the field of administrative institutions that represented the landed nobility, the Landtage, science as historical sociology (cf. Kocka 1981; a co ll ection of rel­ through central regulation by the Crown and an increasingly evant papers ofOtto Hintze's in English is made ava ilable in Gilbert detailed reporting system (cf. Ertman 1997). Dispersed as Hintze's 1975; abrief account of his work can be found in Page 1990). papers were during his lifetime, they nonetheless provided a mulri­ faceted picture of the "organic" nature of public administration, its According to Hintze's interpretation, public administration was the societal embeddedness, and its potential for political integration. original mediator between state and society. This was clearly a Hege­ lian and Von Stein perspective. However, in his empirical research, Another aspect that gained prominence in Hintze's work after 1900 Hintze was deeply penetrating the actual reality of the state-soci­ (cf. Hintze 1911, 1927) was his acknowledgment of the positive ety relationship in the realm of public administration, often with impact of the economic activity of government agencies and, in Prussia as the paradigmatic case. Unlike Weber, he emphasized the today's language, the hybridization of public and private institu­ political ro le of public administration, especially the political role tions. Modern or even "socialist" as it may sound, these ideas were of the upper levels of the civil service (Hintze 1911). He praised the firmly grounded in Hintze's research on the stimulating role of notion of sober professional judgment and political sensibility that, governmental activity and administrative reform, again especially in in his perception, characterized the high standard of the ministe- Prussia, during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Now, in rial bureaucracy in Germany and its career patterns. This made him the last phase of the dramatically accelerated process of industriali­ reject the idea of parliamentarian government as a threat to profes­ zation in imperial Germany before World War I, Hintze analyzed sional administration under the particular German circumstances, the mutual penetration of public administration and private busi­ an attitude that he changed during the course ofWorid War I. ness-for instance, in the armaments industry-and the importance of public enterprises at the municipal level and advocated a Aexible Like the work of Lorenz von Stein, that of Otto Hintze is character­ handling of the civil service statutes and the careful introduction of ized by some contradictions and paradoxes. His earlier work proved some elements and principles ofbusiness administration into public to be more original and distinctive, especially when compared to bureaucracy. Weber, relative to what he published after the end ofWorid War I. He could not imagine that public administration could sustain This may suffice for an illustration of how empirically saturated and its political role in a nonelitist environment of democracy and both analytically and conceptually original and innovative Hintze parliamentarian government (a striking parallel to the inAuential was precisely where his work diverged from Weber's ideal-typical writing of the much younger Carl Schmitt), nor was he inclined and normative notion of the bureaucratic state and its supposed to expand the notion of the integrative function of administration separation from politics and society. beyond the threshold that separated the monarchic regime upheld in Prussia and the rest of Germany until 1918 from parliamentarian However, as we have seen, Hintze had difficulty adapting his lucid democracy as it was established with the constitution ofWeimar conception of the political role of public administration and its in August 1919. Hintze's work in the 1920s and 1930s became, as societal embeddedness to the postmonarchical era. To him, the Kocka (1981) noted, more and more similar to that ofMax Weber, quasi-political ro le of German public administration was a compen­ to the extent that he accepted the idea of bureaucracy as a merely sation for the absence of parliamentarianism as the genuine form tcchnical instrument whosc organizational efficiency would make of political modernization in Western Europe already during the up for the potentially detrimental inAuence of parliamentarianism. nineteenth century. With parliamentary government established 1his was, indeed, a sort of Schmittian contribution to administra­ in Germany in 1918, the political role of public administration, tive science. its integrative function in particular, seemed less desirable. Whil e the left had good reasons to assume that, from a democratic and 1he earlier Hintze, however, was innovative and remarkably "mod­ constitutional perspective, any interference of the civil service with ern" in a double sense. He described the potential of public admin­ political affairs would violate the legiti mate monopoly of power istration for political integration, and he was advocating a more residing with parliament and ele'cted officials, conservatives, in flexible and adaptable sort of "boundary spanning" between the a surprisingly similar vein, defined the apolitical status of public public and the private sector. administration as the core of a robust state apparatus that protected government against the repercussions of political instability. Neither In aseries of pre-1914 articles, Hintze invoked the adaptability of the leftist nor the conservative perspective allowed for the notion of public administration in Prussia during the eighteenth century with an actively integrating state apparatus that was loyal to the newly es­ respect to the particular interests and the resistance of the landed tablished democratic constitutional order. The resulr was a widening nobility (Hintze 1896, 1906, 1908, 1913, 19 15). He described the gap between what the democratic order requ ired and what the main gradual replacement of foreigners in favor of the indigenous nobility political forces were willing to concede to public administration as a within the immediate court administration, starting in the mid­ poli tical integrator. sixteenth century, and the admission of educated bourgeois civil servants to the upper ranks of state administration, especially in the Theoretically, this gap was pardy fi ll cd by Rudolf Smcnd (1882- provinces, and the role of decentralized authoriti es at the regional 1975) and his "integration doctrine" (Integrationslehre) (Smend

723 1923, 1928). Smend's basic idea was that the strength of the Smend's integration doctrine was undoubtedly weil suited to justifY constitution was based on its integrative capacity and that political the role of public administration as a relatively independent power integration was a multifaceted phenomenon far beyond the formal center at the expense of parliament and elected officials. In the order of the constitution and conventional mechanisms and institu­ Smendian sehool of thought, public administration was the locus of tions such as panies and parliaments. What was, above all, positive independent state power (Peters 1965), only loosely bounded by the was that Smend made the notion of integration prominent at all law but committed to the cause of the common good (cf. Badura in a time of deep and, as it soon would turn out, self-destructive 1977; Ehmke 1960; Herzog 1970; Martens et al. 1972; Ossenbühl political divisions and potentially violent conflicts in Germany. This 1978). ll1ese ideas became particularly influential in post-World is what made his ideas acceptable to the thin democratic segment War II West German jurisprudence and beyond (Lhotta 2005) .8 of public law scholars and public intellectuals in the last and lethai One more time, their intellectual appeal resulted from conceptual phase of the Weimar Republic. The flip side was the justification of elasticity: the notion of public administration as committed to the mechanisms of political integration outside the written constitu­ common good and serving as an integrative force of its own right tiOJlal order. 1his implied arbitrariness and the opposite of transpar­ could be interpreted as both a conservative justification of robust ency, responsibility and accountability as core elements of demo­ statehood and a stabilizing element in times of political crisis as cratic constitutionalism. Not a single section of Smend's main book, weil as a liberal defense of the public interest against the abuse of Verfassung und Verfassungsrecht (Constitution and Constitutional governmental power. Law, 1928) was devoted to democracy or democratic constitution­ alism. Instead, he mentioned without funher qualification Italian Structural Transmitters fascism as an instructive example for one out of three core mecha­ As it has been stated in a different context, "ideas do not float freely" nisms of integration, namely, integration through personality and (Risse-Kappen 1994). What made non-Weberian thought so influ­ leadership (Sm end 1928, 23).5 ential in German public administration was the complementarity of ideas and structural transmitters. The deviations from the abstract However, Sm end explicitly included public administration in his notion of public bureaucracy, Weberian style, did not only occur in list ofintegrative elements (1928, 30-31). He provided the "miss­ purely theoretical terms; rather, they were practically implemented ing link" that was absent in the conceptual framework ofWeber as alternatives to formallegality, organizational hierarchy, profes­ and Hintze as far as the integrative role of public administration sionalism, and division oflabor within the legal and organizational was concerned in characterizing the function of the civil servant as structure of German public administration. All of these elements susceptible to what he called the "spirit of the public" (Geist des Pub­ were designed to enhance the flexibility and integrative capacity of likums) (1928, 30). In a distinctly antipositivist way, Smend argued public authorities. against legal formalism in the application of the law by the individ­ ual civil servant. He pleaded for a civil service that would take into Formallegality was softened through an increasing use of in­ account what is acceptable and legitimate in the eyes of the overall definite terms and general clauses in the post-World War I era public. This was a definite alternative to Weber's view of bureaucracy (cf. Hedemann 1933). This was generally interpreted as a conse­ as being apolitical as weil as uncharismatic and purely formalistic by quence of the intensified regulatOl'y activity of the state at a time its very nature. What is more, Smend implicitly stressed the impor­ when industrialization and the emergence of the welfare state tance of the psychological sensitivity of the individual bureaucrat for coincided. Indefinite legal terms and general clauses were meant as the undercurrents of public opinion, a point clearly neglected in the technical mechanisms of coping with regulatory complexity. They work ofWeber and Hintze alike. left discretionary leeway to public authorities working under the respective law, and thus conceded to public Democratic or progressive as the ideas of administration the very autonomy that, in Rudolf Smend may sound today, they were Democratic or progressive as a Smendian sense, is the prerequisite for an designed to justifY all kinds of political the ideas of Rudolf Smend independent integrative function of bureauc­ ideology influencing the practice of public ad­ racyY But they also served as a vehicle for may sound today, they were ministration under the formal auspices of the ideational integration on the basis of the com­ rule oflaw. Ir was precisely the acceptability designed to justify all kinds of mon sense that Smend euphemistically ca lied of political ideology in the guise of the "sound political ideology infl.uencing the "spirit of the public," which, in practice, sentiment of the people" (gesundes Volksemp­ the practice of public could easily become the pretext for submit­ finden) that shaped the practice of public administration under the formal ting the rule law to the imperatives of political administration under the Nazi regime while auspices of the rule of law. ideology (cf. Rüthers 1968; Stolleis 1974). maintaining the illusion of a perpetuated rule of law. 6 Rudolf Smend was not a Nazi hirnself, As far as alternatives to organizational hierar­ nor did his "integration doctrine" gain direct and substantial influ­ chy are concerned, the "corporation of public law" (Körperschaft des ence during the Nazi period from 1933 to 1945. But the idea of öffintlichen Rechts) is the decisive component in the organizational public administration as executing the rule of law in accordance dimension. The KÖlperschaft is defined as membership based. The with criteria of conventional wisdom or common sense was to some idea is the co-optation of those using the respective corporation or extent compatible with the ideology and practice ofNazi rule, to the participating in its activity into its governing bodies. This panicular extent that it cncouragcd public officials to act in accordancc with legal form of government agencies dates back to the early nineteenth the Nazi worldview (nationalsozialistische Weltanschauung) rathcr century, at which time it was meant as an alternative to parliamen­ than with the binding stipulation of the law. 7 tary government. lluough co-opting selected representatives of

724 society, the bourgeoisie in particular, the reformers of German­ The actual application of indefinite legal terms and. general dauses read, again: Prussian-public administration attempted to ward off as weil as the discretion explicitly granted by the law in the form of further-reaching pretensions to full democratization (cf. Koselleck Ermessen have been standardized through the public administration 1967). "Administrative reform instead of constitutional reform" was law literature and the rulings of the upper levels of the court system. the key slogan, and the creation of the corporation of public law was What also works in favor of a substantiated rule of law is the con­ the key element of its operationalization. This came dose to what, a stitutional guarantee of the right of the individual citizen to sue any century later,]. Donald Kingsley (1944) would call "representative governmental body before the local administrative courts (Artide bureaucracy," based on a balance of se!f-administration (Selbstver­ 19 of the Basic Law) and the fact that court fees in Germany are waltung) and state control (Staatsaufsicht). relatively low.

Another nonhierarchical component of Ger­ lhe Rip side is represented by weak standards man public administration-quite at odds Another nonhierarchical of due process in administrative decision with.the image of an executive branch charged component of German public making, wh ich never gained strong recogni­ with the legacy of aurhoritarian regimes of administration-quite at odds tion in Germany. Violation of procedural various sorts-is the culture of cooperation with the image of an executive standards cannot be challenged as such as and compromise as a crucial element of the long as, the relevant law stipulates (Verwal­ branch charged with the legacy state-economy relationship. While it is widely tungsvelfahrensgesetz, para. 46), observance of acknowledged that Germany falls into the of authoritarian regimes of the relevant procedural rules would not have category of neocorporatist government, it various sorts-is the culture of altered the ultimate decision. Questionable remained largely ignored that the state-soci­ cooperation and compromise as as this is in the light of due process principles ety relationship follows a similar pattern in a crucial element of the state­ as a core element of the rule of law, it again the administrative dimension. This, too, dates economy relationship. underlines the distance berween the ideal-type back to the compromises berween the Crown ofWeberian bureaucracy, with its basic idea and landed aristocracy in the seventeenth of formallegality as the exdusive guideline for century. administrative decision making, and the reality of German public administration, characterized by Rexibility and pragmatism. One might say, however, that the shadow ofHege! and Weber was long enough to overshadow the strong tradition of cooperative pub­ Last but not least, the idea of bureaucratic professionalism is not lic administration, whose strengths and virtues were (re)discovered fully implemented in German public administration either. Cer­ in administrative science literature, even in Germany, only at the tainly, the corps of well-educated civil servants for different strata end ofthe rwentieth century (cf. Benz 1994; Ellwein 1993; Leh­ and segments of public administration has formed the backbone of mbruch 1987). To their own astonishment, scholars in the field of German civil service since the late seventeenth century (cf. Wunder empirical implementation research, which emerged in the 1970s, re­ 1986). However, the system of the corporation of public law alized that local authorities were constantly negotiating with private (Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts) and the systematic co-optation enterprises on local standards of environmental protection (Mayntz of its respective diente!e into their governing bodies have led to the 1983; Mayntz and Derlien 1978; Mayntz and Hucke 1978). This combination of administration by professionals with administra­ was not surprising at all, though, from the perspective of the his­ tion by amateurs. Nonprofessionals as "members" of corporations tory of German public administration law, with its extensive use of of public law have a considerable influence on the actual policy of indefinite legal terms and general dauses designed to provide local governmental agencies. administration with discretionary leeway for individually adapted solutions. At the time, it was nonethe!ess (mis)interpreted as a new Weberian and Non-Weberian Thought and Its posthierarchical style of administrative behavior (cf. Mayntz 1983). Consequences in a German versus a U.S. Perspective Ir has been stated that Max Weber's theory of bureaucracy has Inherent in the flexible application of the law by local administra­ gained much more inRuence in the United States than in its country tion is the risk of arbitrariness, agency capture, or even corruption, o( origin, Germany (Debbasch 1978, 13). While Weber is treated and thus the corrosion of the rule of law as such. What mitigates as the icon of pure theory of public administration in the United that risk under the German conditions is a fairly balanced combina­ States (cf. Suleiman 2006), his name is used as a formal point of tion of jurisprudential doctrines on how to use the discretionary reference in German textbooks on public administration at best. leeway gran ted by the law, on the one hand, and the delegated There is an overall consensus among German scholars and practi­ rights of self-regulation, on the other. The combination of these rwo tioners that Weber's ideal-typical conception of bureaucracy does mechanisms enables public administration at the regional and local not cover the reality of German public administration (cf. Bogumil levels to exert a certain amount of Rexibility while at the same time and ]arm 2008; Bogumil, ]arm, and Nullmeier 2006). That real- developing the necessary degree of standardization and coherence in ity is portrayed in the relevant literature as being shaped by strong decision making. cooperative ingredients and pragmatic decision making rather than strict observance of formallegality and related standard operating De!egated se!f-regulation of public administration takes place in the procedures. Non-Weberian characteristics of public administration form of subparliamentary legislation as ordinances (Verordnungen) are implicitly or explicitly interpreted-or heralded-as progres- and the charters of self-governing bodies, with the corporations of sive or postmodern phenomena relative to the traditional concept public law (Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts) as the typical case. of modern administration outlined by Weber. Students of public

725 administration outside Germany, by contrast, tend to identify principalities in kingdoms si nce the seventeenth century. On the formallegality and hierarchical governance as weil as the application other hand, he conceived the ideal-type of modern bureaucracy as of standard operating procedures by unemotional bureaucrats with an integral part of an all-encompassing process of rationalization, Weber's concept of a nonpolitical sphere of public administration pertaining to worldviews, the economy, and the organization of and with Hegel's notion of the state as the expression of ultimate statehood. These analyses were of limited practical relevance for reason for the sake of the collective good (cf. Lee and Raadschelders those who, at the time ofWeber's writings, had been successful in 2008,420-21 [on Hegel and Weber); Raadschelders 2010; Rut­ effici ently running a modern bureaucracy for 200 years, namely, rhe gers 2001 ; Sager and Rosser 2009), while feeling the necessity to cast of bureaucrats itself. Weber's idea l-typical concept of modern characterize elements of administrative autonomy and Aexibility as burea ucracy never galned inAuence in the discipline that actually surprisingly non-German (e.g., Wilson 1989, 14-18). shaped doctrine building in German administrative science most: public law jurisprudence. So what we realize is an intercultural paradox when it comes to the reception ofWeberian and non-Weberian thought. While Weber's 1hus, ir was because of rh e practical process of stare building in notion of bureaucracy never became popular in its country of terms of modern bureaucracy rhar German administrative science origin, German non-Weberian thought remained virtually unknown emerged without a theoretical "grand design" of som.e inAuence. outside the co untry, despite its actllal inAuence on public adminis­ While Weber's theory of an apolitical bureaucracy seemed to be tration doctrine building. In the transatlantic dimension, especially inappropriate given the actual political history of public administra­ in a German versus U.S. perspective, a diachronic explanation tion, the contributions of his more realistic theoretical contenders (Bevir 1999, 221-64) helps us understand that paradox. were not remotely as systematic and coherent as Weber's concept of bureaucracy as integral part of an epochal process of rationalization. The divergent patterns ofWeberian and non-Weberian ideas and Both the eighteenth-century PolizeywissenschaJt (cf. Maier 1%6) their respective inAuence in Germany and the United States are con­ and the voluminous Verwaltungslehre ofLorenz von Stein, written nected to divergent patterns of political and administrative mod­ in second half of the nineteenth century, remained "good practice" ernization. Since the seventeenth century, state modernization in guidelines for the various fields of public administration. Weber's Germany meant not only to make the stare apparatus more efficient, concept of bureaucracy, by contrast, gained attraction primarily but also to enhance its integrative capacity vis-a-vis challenging among sociologists and political scientists who were more inter­ groups whose interests were put at risk by the process of moderniza­ ested in the abstract characteristics of public administration than in tion. The prototype was the landed aristocracy, whose integration by making burea ucracy work. However, the inAuence of Hege! might way of decentralization and co-optation paved the way for an entire have been attributable to the fact that his notion of the state as the pattern of political integration through public administration. This ultimate materialization of reason not only e!evated the self-esteem made the notion of a Aexible and integrative state apparatus attrac­ of those running the state, but also, at the sa me time, was abstract tive to German theorists and practitioners in a situation in wh ich enough not to collide with the actual practice of public administra­ the integrative forces of political modernization were substantially tion in Germany. hampered. After all, full parliamentary government was established in Germany only in 1918. What is more, Germans experienced the Ir is here that the roots of non-Weberian thought and its inAuence blessing of a professional but strongly decentralized and self-govern­ in German administrative science are located. The gap berween the ing public administration when the latter secured public order and abstract Hegelian notion of the state as the guarantor of reason and a minimum of stability in times of severe political crisis or even the Weber's abstract notion ofbureaucracy as the apolitical tool of gov­ collapse of formal statehood, as was the case during the immediate ernment and the actual practice of bureaucracy as it had emerged posrwar periods of 1918 and 1945-46. in Germany since the seventeenth century was partly bridged by the contributions to administrative science delivered by Lorenz von State modernization in the Uni ted States, by contrast, meant ea rly Srein, Otto Hintze, and Rudolf Smend. 111eir ideas had rhe COIll­ politicalmodernization in the absence of a professional administra­ mon denominator that the reason of the state in the Hegelian sense tion (Nelson 1982; Skowronek 1982; Srillman 1990, 1997). -nlis did not necessarily imply the ex istence of a unified, coherent, hierar­ made the notion of an apolitical and efficient public administra­ chically structured bureaucracy, exclusively guided by formallegality tion attractive to U.S . theorists and practitioners, with Woodrow and run by professional staff. Lorenz von Stein referred to public Wilson's famous paper of 1887 as the most prominent example. administration as the "working state," embedded in civil society Hence the attractiveness and plausibility ofWeberian thought in the and responding to the actual needs of the citizens. Otto Hintze, the United States. How to harmonize a strong and se!f-confident profes­ most prolific analyst of the integrative power of public administra­ sional bureaucracy with the principles of responsible government, tion in Prussia, described the logic of co-optation and cooperation the rule oflaw, transparency, and accountability thus remained a that linked the power and the interests of the Crown and the landed prominent topic in U.S. administrative science (cf. Finer 1941; aristocracy as achallenging societal group shaping both the organ i­ Friedrich 1937, 1957, 1%0; Selznick 1949). zational structure and the style of state-society interaction. Rudolf Smend gave a justification of the integrative activity of the entire By the sa me token, Weber's notion of burea ucracy as an apolitica l state machinery, including public administration, as opposed to the tool of government never gained full recognition in Germany. On notion of bureaucracy as merely executing the rule oflaw. the one hand, Weber just described the overalliogic of bureaucracy as the rational instrument of the (monarchical, nondemocratic) By contrast, the notion of a nonhierarchica l, nonlegalistic, semi­ government as it had been emerging in most advanced German professional, decentralized, and adaptive public administration,

726 prone to building compromises and cooperative relationships with Focusing on performance alone implied a one-sided perspective on societal groups, was the opposite of what reform-minded theorists in public administration that took into consideration neither its actual the United States such as Woodrow Wilson were aiming for at the role as political integrator nor the risks of non-Weberian bureauc­ end of the nineteenth century. What made the thoughts ofWilson racy with respect to normative democratic standards. so Hegelian in style and appropriate as a doctrine for the early Progressive Era was precisely what made it "Weberian" in the sense This is again revealed by a German-V.S. comparison. V.S. admin­ of advocating for public administration as an apolirical and efficient istrative science reRects the traditional American skepticism vis-a-vis organization run by well-educated and non partisan profession- government agencies being compromised by pressure groups at als. Not only did non-Weberian thought of German origin remain the expense of the rule of law, the will of elected legislators, and virtually unknown in the Uni ted States, bur also empirical devia­ the overall public interest, as may be illustrated bya brief series of tions from Weber's ideal-type ofbureaucracy were evaluated much related examples. The co-optation of challenging groups-as we saw, more skeptically than in Germany. In the Wilsonian tradition, U.S. a dominant pattern of governance in German public administration administrative science stressed the notion of bureaucracy as an inte­ since the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries-is perceived in the gral part of democratic-hence responsible-government (Friedrieh United States as an illegitimate threat to the principle of responsible 1937, 1957) and the professionalism as weil as ethical responsibility government and accountable administration. The school-building of the individual ci vii servant (Finer 1941; Mosher 1968; Wilson message of Philip Selznick's TVA and the Grass Roots (1949) was that 1989, 1993). the co-optation of challenging societal groups inevitably leads to goal deRection and violation of the principles of responsible govern­ No such strand of normative literature on public administration ment and accountable administration. Ir was only in the context of emerged in Germany once democracy was firmly established in the "gen der mainstreaming" and "diversity management" in the 1990s Western part of the country after World War II. Issues of accounta­ that ]. Donald Kingsley's idea of "representative bureaucracy" -the bility and administrative responsibility playa minor role in German British version of "integration by administration," German public opinion and administrative science. The same holds true for style-gained some inRuence in the Vnited States (cf. Seiden 1997). the actual quality and enforcement of civil and human rights. When The German version of"representacive bureaucracy," however, is administrative science (Verwaltungswissenschaft) reemerged during restricted to the acknowledgment of the inRuence of well-organized the 1960s in what was then the West German Federal Republic, groups such as the unions, peak associations, and organized busi­ it was, characteristically enough, directed against the notion of ness, while the integration of minorities through systematic co-opta­ public administration as the rational instrument of formal legal- tion remained a blind spot in both German administrative science ity. Theoretical and conceptual components of U.S. organization doctrine building and administrative practice. lo theory, poliey science, and administrative and legislative practice were selectively adapted in accordance with what was compatible Similarly, the evaluation of interagency and state-citizen co opera­ with German public administration practiee and its implicit non­ tion remained different in German and V.S. administrative science. Weberian tradition. Niklas Luhmann (1964, 1966), who started his A telling example is the assessment of publie policy implementa­ career as a civil servant in the state administration ofLower Saxony, tion that formed a major strand of administrative science research adapted the bounded rationality-approach of the Carnegie School of in 1970s. In their seminal study, Press man and Wildavsky (1973) Management (Herben A. Simon, ]ames G. March) in an attempt to developed an early version of a "veto player" analysis that identined conceptualize modern public administration as it was shaped by the the multiplicity of publie agencies and private stakeholders partici­ contrast of formal versus informal organizational structures and the pating in the implementation of public policy pro grams as the main quest for decision making under the condition of limited rational­ factor that doomed those programs to fai!. Conversely, mainstream ity. Fritz W. Scharpf, in a short but highly inRuential study with implementation research in Germany characterized potential veto the signincanr title "1l1e Political Costs of the Rule of Law" (Die points and interagency or state- business negotiations as compo­ politischen Kosten des Rechtsstaats, 1970), which was dedicated nents of an adaptive learning circle, and thus elements of adminis­ to his academic teacher Horst Ehmke (hirnself a disciple of Rudolf trative elasticity (Mayntz 1980, 1983). -nle question oflegitimate Smend), promoted the idea of emancipating public administration and illegitimate inRuence on public administration decision making from strict legal ties and delegating regulatory power to decentral­ and the selection bias of public-private bargaining (or "partner­ ized administrative units in an attempt to make the latter more ship") remained unaddressed. While antibureaucratic sentiments in effective and more democratic-that is, more ilHensively controll ed the Uni ted States, as a rule, express a basic democratie reRex that at the locallevel-at the same time. restricts government interfere)1ce, antibureaucratie thoughts in Ger­ many express a spirit of cooperative-style state-society interaction This tone set, deviations from the legally bounded and hierarchically and informal decision making rooted in the predemocratic political guided bureaucracy have been appraised in (West) German adminis­ history of the country and, thus, prone to neglect democratic stand­ trative science as elemenrs of organizational Rexibility and ingredi­ ards of transparency and contro!. ents of organizational learning (cf. Benz 1994; Mayntz and Derlien 1978; Lehmbruch 1987). Ironically, this reRected the predemocratic Accordingly, it does not come as a surprise that the inRuence of legacy of German public administration as a political integrator German administrative science remained Iimited in the post-World without addressing it as such. The neglect was Weberianism in a War 1I era. The dominalH topic of scholarly debate in the neid non-Weberian vein: the emphasis was on performance improvement since the 1960s-the structural conservatism of public adminis­ rather than on political integration, thus treating public administra­ tration and the necessity of administrative reform (Mayntz and tion as a tool of government, just as it had been treated by Weber. Scharpf 1973; Scharpf 1973)-had prominent forerunners in other

727 countries, especially in France (Crozier 1963, 1971). Ir became even groups while tolerating the notion of"representative bureaucracy" more parochial when it focused, from the mid-1970s on, on the to the exten t that public administration should reflect the ethnic idiosyncrasies of German federalism known as the "joint decision diversity of society, the German pattern is diametrically opposed. Ir trap" (Politikverflechtung; see Scharpf 1988; Scharpf, Reissert, and is an empirical question, however, if and to what extent the selective Schnabel 1976), while further generalizations in agame theoretical inclusion of powerful groups or "veto players" reduces standards of vein (cf. Scharpf 1997) were soon ro be eclipsed by the resounding due process and transparencyand to what extent ethnic selectivity in success of the veto player theorem (Tsebelis 2002). civil service recruitment reduces rule oflaw standards when it comes to sensitive branches of the public service, such as immigration Conclusion: Integration through Administration authorities or police forces. As recent V.S. history demonstrates, the as a Paradigm of Mutual Learning quality of civil rights and the effectiveness of civil rights protection Tbe puzzle connected to the notion of public administration as a may depend as much on the representation of minorities in public political integrator is that it does not conform to the standard model administration as on legislation and the rulings of courts. As recent of democratic integration through parties, civil society, and parlia­ German history demonstrates, the inclusion of well-represented ments. 1he kind of non-Weberian thought portrayed in the present challenging groups in public administration decision-making bodies paper supports rather than mitigates this skepticism. What made may not be enough to exploit the integrative capacity of the state. the works of Lorenz von Stein, Otto Hintze, and Rudolf Smend influential and undertheorized at the same time was that they aptly Notes reflected the delayed political modernization of German state- 1. In the Conrinenral Eutopean use, "state" refers to the entirety of government, hood, with full parliamentary government occurring only in 1918. administration, and the judieiary, while Americans will spontaneously assoeiate Political integration through public administration, established in rhe term "stare" with a subdivision of government. 11,e language of"Bring. the seventeenth century as a compromise between the Crown and ing the State Back In" used by political seientists and sociologists in the 1980s the landed nobility, remained a functional equivalent to parliamen­ (Evans, Rueschemeyer, and Skocpol1985) did not alter these terminological tarization and full civic emancipation in Germany throughout the conventions very much, but it stimulated research on the historical soeiology of nincteenth century. 111erefore, it had no counterpart in the doctrine government and administration, very much in the tradition ofOtto Hintze (cf. building of classic democracies, including the Vnited States, and it Ertlnan 1997 as a prominent example). became useless in Germany as a normative concept after World War 2. "Herrschaft ist am Alltag primär: Verwaltung" (To rule in every day life mea ns 11 without losing its implicit influence. However, there are lessons to primarily: administration) (Weber 1922, 126). be learned from both an analytic and a normative perspective. 3. "Die rein bureaukratische, also: die buteaukratisch-monokratische akten mäßige Verwaltung ist nach allen Erfahrungen die an Präzision, Stetigkeit, Disziplin, From an analytic perspective, the mechanisms through which Straffheit und Verläßlichkeit, also: Bcrechenbarkeit fur den Herrn wie fur organizational bodies in the public realm mobilize the support of die Interessenten, Intensität und Extensität der Leistung, formal universeller their sociopolitical environment are of particular interest. While the Anwendbarkeit auf alle Aufgaben, rein technisch zum Höchstmaß der Leistung traditional perspective (Easton 1965) is restricted to the distinction vervollkommenbare, in all diesen Bedeutungen: formal rationalste, Form der of input- versus output-stimulated support (which would leave to Herrschaftsausübung" (111e putely bureaucratic, rhus bureaucratic-monocratic public administration just the role of an efficient output provider in document-based administration is, according to all experience, with respect to a Weberian sense), the importance of office-level participation and preeision, steadiness, discipline, tightness, reliabiliry, thus predictabiliry for the co-optation or the role of sense making and identity patterns for the chief as weil as for the dient, intensiry and extensiry of performance, fonnally local support of public authorities is largely underresearched. Tbe universal applicabiliry to any kind of tasks, technically to the highest degree notion of public administration as the "working state" (Stein), the of performance improvable, in all the variery of these meanings formally most German experience of co-opting challenging groups into adminis­ rational rype of aurhoriry] (Weber 1922, 128). trative bodies as described by Otto Hintze, and Smend's "integra­ 4. cf. Stolleis: "In the sober perspective ofits uriliry for everyday administration tion doctrine" emphasizing the role of the [Von Stein's concept of public administration] is barely "spirit of the public" as a driving force of state more than a pompous ruin" (1992, 391). practice provide a helpful stimulus for related While the U.S. school of 5. The three core mechanisms of integration, ac- research efforts. Instead of discarding these thought is rather driven by cording to Smend, are personal, functional, and factual ideas as predemocratic, one might address the integration. "Functional" integration mainly translated a concern for protecting dilemmas of democratic integration revealed by inro integration through institutions while, "factual ll in ­ their application to present-day administration. public authorities against tegration was lI sed by Smend as a synonym for integra­ the illegitimate inAuence tion throllgh public goods and services. Kelsen (1930) From a normative perspective, one of those of particularistic pressure critieized Smend for implicit anti-Semirism bec.,"se he dilemmas is the potential conflict between groups while tolerating the eired aflirmatively a casual remark of Max Weber (!) standards of democratic transparency, control, notion of "representative who "apparently" had the sense of Jews from Eastern and accountability versus the representation Europe (Ostjllden) as "impossible Leaders of a German bureaucracy" to the extent that of challenging groups and/or minorities in governmenrallife, even in times of revolution" wh ich public agencies. Western Democracies obvi­ public administration should Smend took as an indication that there are "persons ously handle the dilemma differently. While the reAect the ethnic diversity of who, according to their nature (wesen) are not capable V.S. school of thought is driven by a concern society, the German pattern is to fulfill integrative fllnctions" (Kelsen 1930,29). for protecting public authorities against the diametrically opposed. 6. For an overview, see Meinck (1978) and Stoll eis illegitimate influence of particularistic pressure (1974; 1999, 3 16-400).

728 7. 111is was made explieit in some exemplary cases, such as the tax law. An informa­ Friedrich, Carl J. 1937. Constitllliollal Government and Politics: Nature and Develop­ tive example is paragraph I of the Steueranpassungsgesetz (tax amendment law) ment. New York: Harper & Brothers. of 1934, wh ich read, "The tax laws have to be applied in accordanee with the ---. 1957. Cowtitt,tiol/{d Remon o/Slale: 77" Sllrvival oIthe COlIStÜlltiollrt/ Order. national-sociali st world view (Weltanschammg)" (Steueranpasmngsgesetz. October Providence, RI: Brown Universiry Press. 16, 1934, Reichsgesetzblan I, 929). ---, ed. 1960. Nomos 111: Responsibility. New York: Liberal Ans Press. 8. Horst Ehmke, professor of law at rhe Universiry of Freiburg, became state Gilbert, Pelix, ed. 1975. 77" Historieal Essays ofOtto Hintze. Oxford: Oxford Univer­ secrerary (administrative department head) in the Federal Deparnnent ofJu srice sity Press. in 1966. He se rved for a couple montlls as minister of justice in 1969 before Hedemann, Jusrus W. 1933. Die Flucht in die Generalklausel. Eine Gefohrfiir Staat he was appointed chief of staff of the Federal Chancellery under Willy Brandt lind Recht. Tübingen: J. c. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck) . (1969-74), becoming one of the most powerful figures in the federal govern­ HegeI , Georg W. F. 1821. Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts. In Werke, by ment. Roman Herzog, at the time a professor of law in the Graduate School Georg Wilhe1m Friedrich Hege! , vo!. 7. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkalllp, 1970. of Administrative Seience in Speyer and temporarily its rector (president), was Henog, Roman. 1970. Verwaltung und Verwaltungs recht in einer freiheitlichen president of the Federal Republic of Germany from 1994 to 1999. Industriegesellschaft. Fesrvorrrag vor 48. Deutschen Juristemag in Mai nz. 9. l1,;s was precisely how a direct disciple of Sm end, Horst Ehmke, would present Vo!. II, Part L. the usefulness of indefi nite legal terms and general c1auses in the ea rly 1960s Hintze,Orto. 1896. Preußische Reformbesrrebungen vor 1806. In Ono Hintze­ (Ehmke 1960, 1963). On Ehmke's political role in post- World War II Wes t Geist lind Epochen der derprettßischen Geschichte. Gesammelte Abhandlungen, German history, see nOte 8 herein. edited by F. Hartung, 537-62. Leipzig: Koehler & Amelang, 1943. 10. On the selectivity of interest groups representation in German public policy ---. 1906. Hof- und L~ndesverwaltun g in der Mark Brandenburg unter Joachim making, see Offe (I 972). H. In Dito Hil/lze-Geist und Epochen der der prellßischen Geschichte. Gesammelte Abhandlungen, edited by F. Hartung, 238-88. Leipzig: Koehler & Amelang, 1943. References ---. 1908. Der preußische Militär- und Beamtenstaat im 18. Jal"hunderr. In Badura, Peter. 1977. Staat, Recht und Verf.1Ssllllg in der Integrationslehre. Zum Dito Hintze-Geist und Epochen der der preußischen Geschichte. Gesammelte Ab­ Tode von Rudolf Smend (I 5. Jannuar 1882-5. Juli 1975). Der Staat 15: handlungen, ed ited by F. Hartung, 453-62. Leipzig: Koehler & Amelang, 1943. 305-25. ---. 1911. Der Beamtenstand. In Otto Hintze--Soziologie und Geschichte. Gesa- Benz, Arthur. 1994. Kooperative Verwaltung. Funktionen, Voramsetzungen und Folgen. mmelte Abhal/dlullgCll zur Soziologie, Politik ulld Theorie der Geschichte, edited by Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft. G. Oesterreich, 66- 125. Göningen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964. Bevir, Mark. 1999. 7he Logic ofthe Hislory ofIde as. Cambridge: Cambridge ---. 1913. Die Hohenzollern und der Ade!. In Dito Hintze- Geist und Epochen Universiry Press. der preußischen Geschichte. Gesammelte Abhandlungen, edited by F. Hartung, Blasius, Dirk, and Eckart Pankoke. 1977. Lorenz von SIein. Geschichts- undgesells­ 38-63. Leipzig: Koehler & Amelang, 1943. chaftswissenschaftliche Perspektiven. Darmstadr: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesells­ ---. 1915. Die Hohenzoll ern und der Ade!. In Dito Hintze- Geist und Epochen chaft. der preußischen Geschichte. Gesammelte Abhandlungen, edired by F. Hartung, Bogumil, Jörg, and Werner Jann. 2008. Verl/Jaltung und Venualttmgswissenschaft in 172-237. Leipzig: Koehler & Amelang, 1943. Dmtschlalld Einfiihmng in die Vertualtullgswissenschaft. 2nd ed. Wiesbaden: ---. 1927. Der Staat als Betrieb und die Vermssungsreform. In Dito Hintze­ VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Soziologie und Geschichte. Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur Soziologie, Politik lind Bogumil, Jörg, Werner Jann, and Frank Nullmeier, eds. 2,006. Politik und Venual­ 'lheo ric der Geschichte, edited by G. Oesterreich, 205-9. Göttingen: Vandenh­ tlmg. Politische Vierteljahresschrift. Special iss ue 37. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für oeck & Ruprecht, 1964. Sozialwissenschaften. Ke!sen, Hans. 1930. Der Staat als Integration. Eine prinzipielle Allseinandersetzllng. Clark, Christopher. 2006. lron Killgdom: 77,. Rise and the Dowllfoll of Prmsia, Berlin: Julius Springer. 1600-1947. London: Penguin. Kingsley, J. Donald . 1944. Represmlative BltrCaucracy: An IlltClpwation oflhe British C rozier, Miche!. 1963. Le phinomene bureaucratique. Pari s: Le Seui!. Civil Service. Yell ow Spring, OH: Amioch Press. ---. 197 1. La soeieti bloquü. Paris: Le Seui!. Kocka, Jürgen. 1981.0[[0 Hintze, Max Weber und das Problem der Bürokratie. Debbasch, CharIes. 1978. L~ science administrative dans les pays de l'Europe Historische Zeitschrift 233: 65- 105. occidentale. International Review ofAdministrative Seience 44: 12-27. Kose ll eck, Reinhart. 1967. Prmßen zwischen Refoml und Revolution. Allgemeines Downs, Anthony. 1967. Inside Bureaucracy. Boston: linie, Brown. Landrecht, Venualwng und soziale Bewegllng VOll 1791-1849. Srunga rt: Ernst Easron, David. 1965. A Systems Analysis ofPolitical Lift. Ch i c.~go: Universiry of Klett Verl ag. Chicago Press. Lee, Kwang-Hoon, and Jos C. N. Raadschelders. 2008. Politic.11-Adminisrrative Eh mke, Horst. 1960. "Ermessen" und 'illlbcstimmte Rec/mbegrifft" im Verwaltungsrecht. Relations: Impact of and Puzzles in Aberbach, Purnam, and Rockman, 198 1. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck). Gouemance 2 1(3): 4 19-38. ---. 1963. Prinzipien der VerfosstmgsintelpWation. Veröffentlichungen der Lehmbruch, Gerharr. 1987. Administrative Imeressenverlllinlung. In Verl/Jaltung Vereinigung der Deutschen Staatsrechrslehrer 20. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. IIl1d iJm Umwelt. Festschrift fiir 77;omas Ellwein, edited by Adriennne Wind hoff­ Ellwein, -Ihomas. 1993. Der Staat als Zufoll und Nottumdigkeit. Vo!. 2, Die öjfrntliche Heritier, 11-43. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag. Verl/Jaltung im gesellschaftlichen und politischen Wandel 1919- 1990. Opladen: Lhona, Roland, ed. 2005. Die Integration des modemel/ Staates. ZlIr Aktwtlitdt der Westdeutscher Verlag. Integrationslehre von RlidolfSmend. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgese!lschaft. Ertman, 111Omas. 1997. Birth oflhe Leviathan: Bui/ding Slates and Regimes in Medi­ Luhlllan, Niklas. 1964. FIII/ktionen lind Folgen formaler Organisation. Berlin: eual and Early Modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge Universiry Press. Duncker & Humblot. Eva ns, Peter B., Dier ri ch Rueschemeyer, and 11,eda Skocpol. eds. 1985. Bringing the ---. 1966. 77;eorie der Verwrdtlil/gswissemc/;rlji, Bestmu!s(l/t/tlflhme ulld El/lwllrf Slale Back In. Cambridge: Cambridge Universiry Press. Berlin: Grote. Finer, Herman. 194 1. Administrative Responsibiliry in Democratic Government. Maier, Hans. 1966. Die dltere delltsche StaalS- und Venualmngslehre. Munich: C. H. Public Administration Review 1(4): 335-50. Beck.

729 Martens, Wolfgang, Peter Häberle, OttO Bachof, and Winfried Brohm. 1972. Grundrechte in Leisl/mgstaat. Die Dogmatik des VerllJaüungsrechts vor den Gegenwartsalljgaben der Venvalmng. Veröffen tlichungen der Vereiningung der deutschen Staatsrechtslehre 30. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Mayntz, Renate. 1965. Max Webers Idealtypus der Bürokratie und die Organisationssoziologie. In Bürokrntische Organisation, edited by Renate Mayntz, 27-35. Berlin: Kiepenheuer & Witsch. ---, cd . 1980. Jmplementation politischer Progmmme. Empirische Forsclmngsberichte. Königstein: Verlagsgruppe Athenäum, Hain, Scriptor, Hanstein. ---, ed. 1983. Jmplementation politischer Progmmme 11. Amätze zur 7heoriebildlmg. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Maynrz, Renate, and Hans-Ulrich Derlien. 1978. VollzlIgsprobleme der Umweltpolitik. Empirische Untersllchllng der Jmplemetl/ation VOll Gesetzen in Bereich der Llljtreirrhaülmg ,md des GewässerschlItzes. Sruttgart: Kohlhammer. Maynrz, Renate, and Jochen Hucke. 1978. Gesetzcsvollzug im Umweltschurz. Wirksamkeit und Probleme. Zeitschriftfiir Umweltpolitik I: 217--44. Maynrz, Renate, and Frirz. W. Scharpf. 1973. Plaflltllgsorganisation. Die Diskllssiorr 11m die Refoml vorr Regierung und Verwaltllng des Bundes. Munich: Piper. Meinck, Jürgen. 1978. Weimarer SMatslehre und Natiollalsozialismlls. Eine Smdie zllm Problem der Kontinuiriit im sMatsrecht/ichem Denken in Deutsch/and 1928-1933. New York: Campus. Mosher, Frederick C. 1968. Democmcy (md the Pllblic Service. Oxford: Oxford Universiry Press. Nelson, Michael. 1982. A Short Ironic History of American National Bureaucracy. jOllrnal 0/Politics 44(3): 747-78. Niskanen, William A., J r. 1971. Bureallcmcy and Representative Government. Edison, N J: Transaction. Offe, C1aus . 1972. Politische Herrschaft und Klasscnstrukturcn. Zur Analyse spätkapitalistischer Gcsellschaftssystcme. In Politikwissenschaft· Eine Einführung in ihre Probleme, 4th ed., edited by Gisela Ksess and Dieter Senghaas, 135-64. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Verlag. Ossenbühl, Fritz. 1978. Die Quellen des Verwaltungsrechts. In Allgemeines Verwaltlmgsrecht, 3rd cd., edited by H. U. Erichsen and W. Martens, 55-1 18. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter. Page, Edward C. 1990. The Political Origins of Self-Government and Bureaucracy: Otto Hintze's Conceprual Map of Europe. Political Studies 38(1): 39-55. Petcrs, Hans. 1965. Die Venllaltllng als eigenständige Staatsgewalt. Ksefeld: Scherpen. Pressmann, Jeffrey L., and Aaron B. Wildavsky. 1973. Implemefltation: How Great Expec/tltiollS in Wnshirrgton Are Dashed in Oaklalld Berkeley: Universiry of California Press. Raadschelders, Jos C. N. 2010. Did Max Webers Agony and Ecstasy InAuence His Professional Life?" Publfe Administmtion Review 70(2): 304-16. Risse-Kappen, Thomas. 1994. Ideas Do Not Float Freely: Transnational Coalitions, Domestic Strucrures, and the End of the Cold War. International Organization 48(2): 185-214. Rutgers, Mark R. 2001. Traditional F1avors? the Different Sentiments in European and American Administrative Thought. Administration 6- Sodety 33(2): 220-40. Rüthers, Bernd. 1968. Die unbegrenzte Auslegung. Zum Wandel der Privatrechtsordnung im Nationalsozialismus. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck). Sager, Fritz, and Christian Rosser. 2009. Weber, Wilson and HegeI: Theories of Modern Bureaucracy. Public Administmtion Review 69(6): 11 36-47. Scharpf, Frin W. 1970. Die politischen Kosten des Rechtsstaats. Eine vergleichende Studie der deutschen und amerikanischen Verwalrungskontrollen. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr. --- . 1973. Planung als politischer Prozess. Aufsätze zur Theorie der planenden Demokratie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. ---. 1988. 1he Joint-Decision Trap: Lessons from German Federalism and European Integration. P"blic Administmtion 66(2): 239-78. - --. 1997. Games Real Actors Play: Actor-Cen/ered Institlltionalism in Policy Research. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Scharpf, Fritz W., Bernd Reissert, and Frin Schnabel. 1976. Politikverfiechtwig. Theorie und Empirie des kooperativen Föderalismus in der Bundesrepltblik. Ksonberg: Scripror. Scheuner, Ulrich. 1977. Zur Rolle der Verbände im Ralunen der sozialen Verwaltung nach der Lehre von Lorenz von Stein. Die Stellung Lorenz von Steins in der neuerem Staats- und Gesellschaftslehre. In Staat und Gesellschaft. Studien über Lorenz von Stein, edited by R. Schnur, 273-304. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Seibel, Wolfgang. 1996. Administrative Science as Reform: German Public Administration. Publie Administration Review 56(1): 74- 8 1.

Seiden, Sally Coleman. 1997. 7he Pr01llise o/Represellltllive BuretmwltT Diversi/} tlud Respomiveness ill (I Govenmre"t Agency. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. Selznick, Philip. 1949. 7VA ami the Grass Roots: A Stlldy in the Sociology 0/FormalOrgtlnization. Berkeley: Universiry of California Press. Skocpol, Thcda. 1979. Sta!eS and Social Revolutiom: A Comparative Analysis 0/Franc e, Russia, and China. Cambridge: Cambridge Universiry Press. Skowronek, Stephen. 1982. Bltildillga Newllmeriean Slate: 711e Exptlmion o/NatiorutlAdmillistrative Capacities 1877- 1920. Cambridge: Cambridge Universiry Press. Smend, Rudolf. 1923. Die politische Gewalt im Ve'fosSlmgsstaat und das Problem der Staatsform. Reprint of Staatsrechtliche Abhandlungen, Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1968. ---. 1928. Verfossung und Ve'fossrmgsrecht. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Stein, Lorenz von. 1865. Venllaltungslehre und VerllJaltlmgsrecht. Frankfurt am Main: Vitto";o Klostermann, 1958. - --. 1866-84. Handbuch der Venvaltwigslehre. 8 Vols. Sruttgart: Cotta. Stillman, Richard J., 11. 1990. TI,e Peculiar "State!ess" Origins of American Public Administration and the Consequences for Government Today. Publie Administration Review 50(2): 156--65. - - -. 1997. American vs. European Public Administration: Does Public Administration Make the Modern State, or Does the State Make Public Administration? Public Administration Review 57(4): 332- 38. Stolleis, Michael. 1974. Gemeinwohlformel im nationalsozialistischen Recht. Berlin: J. Scheitzer Verlag. - --. 1992. Geschichte des Offintlichen Rechts in Deutschland. Vol. 2, Staatsrechtslehr, und VerllJaltungswissenschaft 1800-1914. Munich: C. H. Beck. ---. 1999. Geschichte des Offintlichen Rechts in Deutschland. Vol. 3, S/aats- und Verwaltungsrechtswissenschaft in Republik und Diktatur 1914- 1945. Munich: C. H. Beck. Sulciman, Ezra. 2006. Is Weber Still Relevant? 'Ihe Future ofBurcaucracy: Speech in Honor ofJuan Linz. http://www.docsroc.com/docsI2458577/IS-WEBER-STILL- RELEVANT-The-F uture-of-Bureaucracy faccessed June 14, 20 101 . Tsebeli s, George. 2002. Veto Players: HOIII Polhicallnstitutions W,nk Princeton, NJ: Princeron Universiry Press. Waldo, Dwighr. 1961 . Organizational TI,eory: An Elephantine Problem. Public Administration Review 21(4): 210- 25. Weber, Max. 1922. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Gmndriß der vmtehenden Soziologie. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1976. Wilson, James Q . 1989. BI/reallcracy: Wlhat Govmmrem Agencies Do and Why They Do 1/. New York: Basic Books. ---. 1993. 7he Moral Sense. New York: The Free Press. Wilson. Woodrow. 1887. The Study of Administration. Political Science Quarterly 2(2): 197- 222. Wunder, Bernd. 1986. Geschichte der Bürokratie in Deutsch/and. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

730