Hindy Lauer Schachter, Editor

Jeremy F. Plant Penn State Harrisburg

Carl J. Friedrich on Responsibility and Authority Book Review Essay

Carl J. Friedrich’s concept of administrative responsibility public administration thought, however, the guid- Jeremy F. Plant is a professor of public is examined in his published works from 1935 to ing fi gure in advancing the idea of administrative policy and administration and coordinator of graduate programs in public administra- 1960. Friedrich’s idea of responsibility encompassed responsibility is Carl Joachim Friedrich. Beginning tion and homeland security in the School not only political and personal responsibility within with his examination of Swiss bureaucracy in the early of Public Affairs, Penn State Harrisburg. He the hierarchy of bureaucratic organizations, but also 1930s and his famous debates with Herman Finer teaches and conducts research on public management, transportation policy, human functional responsibility based on scientifi c knowledge between 1935 and 1941, and continuing through resource management, homeland security, and professional standards required by the reality his work with the American Society for Political and and ethics. His published work has ap- of administrative discretion. Friedrich’s notion of Legal Philosophy in the 1950s and 1960s, Friedrich peared in such journals as Public Admin- istration Review, American Review of responsibility is contrasted with that of Herman developed a consistent approach to administrative Public Administration, Public Works Finer, who espoused strict obedience to political and responsibility that required professional civil servants Management and Policy, Public administrative superiors. An examination of the to reconcile what he called the personal aspects of Integrity, Review of Policy Research, and Policy Studies Review. NOMOS series of edited volumes from the later stage of accountability—compliance with authority within an E-mail: [email protected] Friedrich’s career refl ects the consistency of his views on organization—with objective or functional responsi- responsibility and on the relationship of responsibility bility, which essentially required administrators to be to authority based on reasoned communication. capable of answering why a particular decision was Friedrich’s optimism regarding such authority contrasts made or an action taken, based on solid professional with Hannah Arendt’s view that authority is no longer or scientifi c grounds. an operative concept in modern society. Friedrich lays an important foundation for continued interest Th is review looks at Friedrich’s development of the among public administrative scholars in the concept of idea of responsible administration by examining two administrative responsibility. major works from the pre–World War II era and two later essays published in the NOMOS series, the an- n recent years, the concept of administrative nual publication of the American Society for Political responsibility has received a great deal of attention and Legal Philosophy, an interdisciplinary learned Ifrom scholars in public administration (Bertelli society that he helped form in 1955.2 Friedrich’s posi- and Lynn 2003; Burke 1986; Cooper 2006; Denhardt tions on responsibility and authority are contrasted and Denhardt 2007; Jackson 2009; O’Leary 2006). with those of Herman Finer on responsibility and Is responsibility the same as accountability, or does Hannah Arendt on authority. Th ey collectively pro- it require a greater degree of ethical and professional vide valuable insights on one of the most signifi cant awareness than simply following orders faithfully questions facing public administration: how to recon- within a hierarchy? How do we expect administra- cile demands for professional expertise in administra- tors to exercise responsibility under conditions of tion with the need for accountable and responsible complexity and uncertainty? What role, if any, should action, a theme that is as relevant to today’s world of professional administrators play in policy formation? public administration as it was in Friedrich’s lifetime. Underlying all of the discussions is the realization that administration inescapably involves discretion Background: Friedrich and Public and judgment and the power to act on judgmental Administration decisions. How can this be reconciled with democratic Friedrich was born in 1901 in Leipzig, the son of a constitutionalism and personal freedom? distinguished professor of medicine and a Prussian countess. Brilliantly educated in the fi nest German Responsibility as a concept in political and admin- gymnasium tradition, he graduated from the Uni- istrative thought dates back at least to the writings versity of Heidelberg, from which he received his of Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers.1 In undergraduate degree in 1925 and a doctorate in

Carl J. Friedrich on Responsibility and Authority 471 1930. In 1926, Friedrich joined the faculty of the example, seem to off er a good opportunity—in Department of Government at Harvard University, order to enable the parties to carry on. If that which remained his primary professional attachment sort of arrangement could be supplemented by a until his retirement in 1971. Friedrich was a prolifi c cautiously initiated and well-considered scheme author whose work encompasses a wide range of top- of public honors to be bestowed upon deserv- ics in political science. He wrote or edited more than ing men of aff airs, it would probably make it 50 books and 60-plus articles and book chapters.3 He possible to take out of patronage some of the passed away in 1984. important policy-forming and yet highly techni- cal positions of administrative leadership, and Th e concept of responsible administration was the re- to put them under the civil service, i.e., to make curring theme in Friedrich’s work on public adminis- them part of the responsible government service, tration from the 1930s through the 1960s. Friedrich’s without at the same time sending the Ameri- view of responsible government administration was can party system tumbling to the ground and fi rst in evidence in a book published in 1932, Respon- American democracy with it. (1935, 14–15) sible Bureaucracy: A Study of the Swiss Civil Service, coauthored with Taylor Cole. Switzerland’s public Friedrich thus disposes of the simplistic notion service attracted Friedrich as a subject, he later noted, that politics and administration can be kept wholly because its system put responsibility ahead of such separate by turning the equation on its head: policy purely bureaucratic values of effi ciency, rule compli- positions should be accorded to the civil servant, and ance, and obedience to authority: merely honorifi c or routine positions to patronage. Th e concept of responsibility is in need of rethinking For perhaps there is a species of bureaucracy in the age of administration, in Friedrich’s view, in which is not destructive of popular govern- two respects. First, he notes that “there is a widespread ment, just as there are microbes that are not belief in English-speaking countries that there are destructive of human life. A deep interest in two kinds of responsibility, political and personal, the this possibility caused the author some time ago one enforceable through elections, the other through to investigate the various aspects of the public courts” (1935, 30). But in developed administra- service of so fi rmly established a democratic tive systems, these are not in themselves adequate: government as that of Switzerland. It appeared “something beyond these broader types of general in the course of this investigation that the responsibility must be found to fi ll in the interstices, public services of Switzerland, while exhibiting where government service is far-fl ung and technically certain characteristics of bureaucracy, did not competent” (1935, 32). Th is is what Friedrich terms a exhibit others which are closely associated with third sort of responsibility—objective and functional the notion of bureaucratic government as it is responsibility. Th e civil servant, tenured and thus both generally held. (Friedrich 1935, 17) protected from political manipulation and encour- aged to be creative, has a responsibility to be able to Th e source of this quote is Friedrich’s fi rst major work exercise discretion and justify acts of judgment by on American public administration, a 72-page mono- supplying sound reasons based on scientifi c evidence graph written for the Commission of Inquiry on Pub- for such decisions. lic Service Personnel and published along with four other studies in Problems of the American Public Service Second, responsibility for administrative action must in 1935. Th e title of the monograph, “Responsible be seen as a corporate matter, not an individual one. Government Service under the American Constitu- Th is requires special administrative courts of the sort tion,” refl ects Friedrich’s interest in viewing responsi- he looked at favorably in his study of Swiss public ble administrative conduct within the constitutional service (1935, 46–47). Friedrich worded this require- framework of a given political system. Friedrich be- ment for corporate responsibility strongly, expressing gins by summarizing the history of the United States, the view that “if the people through their government noting fi ve factors that have been most signifi cant in are unwilling to accept corporate responsibility for determining how government service has evolved: the the acts of their offi cers, they do not yet know what absence of powerful neighbors, pioneer traditions, the it means to conduct a responsible government in an melting pot of races and peoples, the multiplicity of industrial age” (1935, 46). Liability is moved from churches, and the two-party system. At the conclusion the individual and affi xed to the corporate entity. of his analysis of these historical factors, Friedrich ad- As Friedrich notes, “what is the use of granting such vances a novel approach to the relationship of politics [discretionary] powers to various government services and merit for a responsible government service: if the individual offi cer recoils from responsible action because he is held personally liable?” (1935, 45). A way, therefore, must be found to mark out for patronage such positions as do not require spe- What emerges from Friedrich’s discussion of responsi- cial knowledge—and the postmasterships, for bility is a nuanced view of the politics–administration

472 Public Administration Review • May | June 2011 dichotomy—or, stated another way, a politics but not most students of public administration know about policy–administration dichotomy. In moving in this his work, the so-called Friedrich-Finer debates of direction, Friedrich expresses confi dence that adminis- the immediate pre–World War II years (Bertelli and trators will not misuse their discretionary power: Lynn 2003; Cooper 2006; Denhardt and Denhardt 2007; Jackson 2009). Th e subject of the debate was We realize today, owing to the contributions of the proper understanding of administrative account- modern psychology, that there is no such thing ability and responsibility within government agencies as a specifi c “will of the people” with regard to in democratic systems of government. Finer of the the technicalities of revenue collection or any University of London took exception to Friedrich’s other “objective” task or function. All the people distinction between personal responsibility and what, want is “good” execution of the task. Conse- to him, was the more nebulous and troubling concept quently “responsibility” to the people does not of functional responsibility. Finer’s view was that re- require partisans of a particular general outlook, sponsibility was synonymous with obedience to exter- whether Republican or Democrat, conservative, nal controlling authorities (1936, 580) and not to any progressive, or socialist, but it does require spe- sense of professionalism or broader scientifi c truth. cialists who “know the ropes” and will therefore As might be expected, Finer found “truly startling” eff ectively execute the general rules decided and wrong-headed (1936, 581) Friedrich’s idea that upon by executive or legislative leadership. discretionary authority is best lodged in career public Fortunately, people aware of such “objective” administrators and not politically appointed offi cials. standards and sensitive therefore to such “objec- tive” responsibility within a given function are As Michael Jackson (2009) notes in his compre- usually glad to be relieved of the obligation of hensive review of the Friedrich-Finer interchanges, making decisions where no objective standards much of the debate centered around two points of are available. Th e very passion for objectivity and divergence: the ability of political principals—min- impartiality which renders them judicially or sci- isters—to control and supervise all of the details of entifi cally minded, or both, makes them shrink administration, and the role that nonpolitical career from any rash and arbitrary decision. (1935, 38) administrators should play in the policy–administra- tion cycle. Finer argued the traditional view in both Friedrich’s 1935 monograph has been quoted in some the objective question—can ministers in fact oversee detail because it represents the fi rst expression of the all aspects of administrative discretion in complex concept of administrative responsibility, which is the public bureaucracies?—and the normative ques- foundation of his view of proper public administra- tion—is this the proper relationship between politics tion. Summarizing his major points, responsible and administration? Friedrich, while not amassing a administration is distinguished from simple bureauc- great deal of empirical data to support his position, racy by the use of, and legal control of, administrative argued for a revisionist view in both regards. To him, discretion, grounded in the historical realities of a administration had evolved to the point that it was given constitutional framework. Responsible adminis- impossible for political principals to oversee all the tration builds on the simplistic notion of bureaucracy aspects of work done by their agents, the professional by adding (not substituting) professional judgment administrators. He also clearly added a normative to compliance with hierarchical control and coercion element as well: it was preferable for career adminis- (1935, 54) and the requirement for what he calls trators to make discretionary judgment, as they had “publicity,” the “task to educate the public by making a base of knowledge that was in excess of that of the available his fi ndings as a responsible administrator politician, and a professional code of conduct, even if of existing legislation.” Responsibility is enforced not implicit, that led to rational judgment and the ability only through the hierarchical chain of command but to provide reasoned answers for why discretionary also through administrative courts and commissions decisions were made. of inquiry. All of this, Friedrich adds, is compatible with American traditions, constitutional arrange- Finer and Friedrich continued the debate in a pair ments, and federalism. It also shows the method of of articles in 1940 and 1941. Friedrich revisited his argumentation that Friedrich typically employed views on responsible administration in 1940 in an throughout his career, using history, logic, and aware- article in Public Policy titled “Public Policy and the ness of government practice to build a strong case for Nature of Administrative Responsibility.” He was par- a given position. Th e only major omission from his ticularly busy in 1939 and 1940 as war erupted and usual tool kit is the absence of a grounding of ideas in the full nature of the evils of totalitarian regimes was classical political philosophy. revealed, leading to the beginning of his groundbreak- ing analysis of the origins of totalitarianism in Greek The Friedrich-Finer Debates and Hegelian deifi cation of the state (Friedrich 1939, Friedrich’s contrast between traditional accountabil- 1940a). His article in Public Policy restated many ity and administrative responsibility triggered what of the themes from the 1935 monograph but also

Carl J. Friedrich on Responsibility and Authority 473 presented a probing criticism of the failure of British Put quite broadly, it may be said that the public parliamentary government to deal eff ectively with the relations work of the administrative agencies has challenges posed by the rise of fascism.4 Triggered no the task of anticipating clashes between the ad- doubt by Finer’s criticism of his positions on respon- ministrative eff orts of eff ectuating a policy and sibility, the 1940 article is written with an underlying the set habits of thought and behavior of the passion and sense of personal involvement that sets public which constitutes its “environment” . . . it apart from the rather slow-moving and careful ap- Many of the questions asked of the informa- proach employed in the 1935 monograph, although tion services of important federal agencies have the argument is essentially the same, as shown by the no answer. Th e questions raise issues of policy number of times Friedrich quotes his earlier work. It which either have not been anticipated, or at is full of quotable passages that summarize Friedrich’s least have not been settled by the administrative position on administrative responsibility, which offi cer involved, or reported back to Congress remains tied to both the technical and political aspects for settlement. (1940b, 18–19) of responsible action: Friedrich’s idea of publicity raises issues of the right of Th e pious formulas about the will of the people dissent and free speech within administrative agencies. are all very well, but when it comes to these In this regard, his approach is clear and unambiguous: issues of social maladjustment the popular will there cannot be what he calls a “gag rule” imposed has little content, except the desire to see such from above that is based solely on bureaucratic no- maladjustments removed. A solution which tions of personal responsibility. Rather, offi cials bear fails in this regard, or which causes new and the objective responsibility of “addressing themselves perhaps greater maladjustments, is bad; we have to their colleagues in a frank and scientifi cally candid a right to call such policy irresponsible if it can manner” (1940b, 23). be shown that it was adopted without proper regard to the existing sum of human knowledge Th e only sound standard in a vast and techni- concerning the technical issues involved; we cally complex government such as ours is to also have a right to call it irresponsible if it can insist that the public statements of offi cials be be shown that it was adopted without proper in keeping with the highest requirements of regard for existing preferences in the communi- scientifi c work. If a man’s superiors disagree ty, and more particularly its prevailing majority. with him, let them mount the same rostrum Consequently, the responsible administrator is and prove that he is wrong; before the goddess one who is responsive to these two dominant of science all men are equal. (1940b, 23) factors: technical knowledge and popular senti- ment. (Friedrich 1940b, 12) Th e 1940 essay essentially lays out Friedrich’s view of proper administration. It is proactive, guided by and Responding to the criticism of Herman Finer and oth- respectful of both professional and political aspects of ers that the British system of parliamentary responsi- responsibility. Th e aspect of administrative manage- bility is superior to the American system of constitu- ment that is crucial to its success is personnel manage- tional separation of powers, Friedrich is dismissive: ment, to ensure that morale in agencies is high, rules allowing for responsible conduct are promulgated and As contrasted with the detailed and continuous enforced, and employees are allowed “a status at least criticism and control of administrative activity equal in dignity and self-respect to the status its labor aff orded by Congressional committees, this par- laws impose upon and demand from private employ- liamentary responsibility is largely inoperative ers” (1940b, 21). Friedrich’s connection to the fi eld and certainly ineff ectual. When one considers of public administration throughout the decade of the extent of public disapproval directed against 1930–40 consisted almost entirely of work that in one Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Congressional sup- way or another connected him to the emerging fi eld porters who were commonly dubbed “rubber of personnel administration (Friedrich 1935, 1937, stamps,” it is astonishing that anyone extolling 1940b), in large part because responsible administra- the virtues of British parliamentarianism should tion was reliant on civil servants, and the role of civil get a hearing at all. For what has the parlia- servants was defi ned by the personnel system within mentary majority in Britain been in the last few which they operated. years but a rubber stamp of an automatic docil- ity undreamt of in the United States? (1940b, Finer responded to Friedrich’s refi ned and expanded 10) notion of responsibility with an article in the fi rst vol- ume of Public Administration Review that reinforced Friedrich also expands the idea of “publicity” intro- his earlier contention that a strict interpretation of duced in his 1935 monograph by arguing for a vigor- the politics–administration dichotomy is needed to ous public relations function: ensure accountability to the public through obedience

474 Public Administration Review • May | June 2011 of administrators to their political superiors (Finer dominant consideration for public administra- 1941).5 From the fi rst paragraphs of the article, it tion; and it includes and does not merely stand is clear that Finer’s purpose is targeting Friedrich’s by the side of responsibility to the standards of position on the role of the career administrator in one’s craft in the dubious position of a Cin- exercising discretion in the name of professional derella. (1941, 347) responsibility: Finer’s fi nal criticism of Friedrich concerns the latter’s My chief diff erence with Professor Friedrich notion of “publicity.” Whereas Friedrich advocates was and is my insistence upon distinguishing open communication between administrators and the responsibility as an arrangement of correction public in instances in which factual information can and punishment even up to dismissal both of and should be provided for the public to reach ration- politicians and offi cials, while he believed and al conclusions on issues of policy, Finer again takes the believes in reliance upon responsibility as a opposite position, arguing for a closed bureaucracy sense of responsibility, largely unsanctioned, communicating to the public only through its elected except by deference or loyalty to professional representatives and political institutions: standards. (1941, 335) A wise civil servant, careful to preserve his own Finer then proceeds to make his argument in two usefulness and that of his colleagues, and not ways: to restate and defend his position on strict reckless in the face of the always imminent cry political accountability and to critically examine Frie- of bureaucracy and despotism, would not urge drich’s 1940 article. Th e tone is combative and often a policy upon it. Still less would he use public tart, with Finer noting that “most of the things I have advocacy to spur on his political chief or con- to say are extremely elementary, but since it has been nive with reformist groups having a purpose- possible for a writer of eminence to discount their ful policy. He would rather confi ne himself to signifi cance I may be forgiven for reaffi rming them” frank private demonstration of the alternatives (1941, 335). On administrative discretion, he is clear: and their advantages and disadvantages, to his “My answer is that the servants of the public are not political chief, or where the political system to decide their own course; they are to be responsi- requires, to the committee of the assembly at ble to the elected representatives of the public, and their request. (1941, 349) these are to determine the course of action of public servants to the most minute degree that is technically Finer concludes his biting attack on Friedrich with a feasible” (1941, 336). To do otherwise is to discard statement of his belief in the “adequately sagacious” the basic framework of democracy: nature of the public and their political leaders, who “know not only where the shoe pinches, but have a But when Professor Friedrich advocates the shrewd idea as to the last and leather of their foot- offi cial’s responsibility to “the fellowship of wear” (1941, 350). Administrative discretion may be science,” the discard of offi cial anonymity, the found to have a role in modern democratic govern- entry of the offi cial into the political arena as ance, but should result in advice to political offi cials, an advocate of policy and teacher of fact versus not autonomy to speak and act according to profes- “partisan extravagance,” the result to be feared sional judgment: is the enhancement of offi cial conceit and what has come to be known as “the new despotism.” Contemporary devices to secure closer coopera- (1941, 340) tion of offi cials with public and legislatures are properly auxiliaries to and not substitutes for Finer is on stronger ground when he challenges Frie- political control of public offi cials through exer- drich’s optimistic view of the ability of professionals tion of the sovereign authority of the public. through their professional organizations to use techni- Th us, political responsibility is the major con- cal knowledge to advance their view of the public cern of those who work for healthy relationships interest. He rejects Friedrich’s notion that functional between the offi cials and the public, and moral responsibility requires professional judgment outside responsibility, although a valuable conception the policies that refl ect the will of the people, stating and institutional form, is minor and subsidiary. that “it is demonstrable that the will of the people has (1941, 350) content, not only about what it desires, but how mal- adjustments can be remedied, and some of its ideas Friedrich chose not to respond to Finer, and thus are quite wise” (1941, 346). Finer here plays the role ended the famous debate. Each man gave as good as of the populist against Friedrich’s professional elitism: he got, with the developing fi eld of public administra- tion the winner by having the sides so clearly drawn Responsibility in the sense of an interper- on the role of administration in developed democratic sonal, externally sanctioned duty is, then, the nation-states. After 1940, Friedrich moved away from

Carl J. Friedrich on Responsibility and Authority 475 his earlier concern with personnel administration contributors were the superstars of their day, whose toward broader concerns raised by the war and the work and reputations stood on their own. postwar peace (Friedrich 1943, 1945, 1947a, 1947b). During this time, he published for the fi rst and only Authority is in many ways the strongest and most use- time in Public Administration Review, an article titled ful of the nine NOMOS volumes edited by Friedrich. “Planning for the Greater Boston Metropolitan Area” In the aftermath of World War II and the rise of the (Friedrich 1945). But his concern with public admin- Cold War, authority became entangled with authori- istration was largely embedded in his broader exami- tarian rule and totalitarian excess, so it was a logical nation of constitutional government and federalism fi rst topic for the society to explore under Friedrich’s (Friedrich 1948, 1949a, 1949b, 1950, 1953), political guidance. Friedrich’s essay, “Authority, Reason, and theory and philosophy, and dictatorship and totalitari- Discretion,” appeared as the second of 13 contribu- anism. By the mid-1950s, as the NOMOS series was tions, which were grouped into three parts: authority launching, Friedrich’s concern was increasingly the in- in general; authority in historical perspective; and tersection of political science, law and jurisprudence, authority in sociopolitical perspective. Contributors and philosophy. He never returned to his earlier ef- included such well-known writers as Hannah Arendt, forts to share his work directly with the fi eld of public Herbert J. Spiro, Bertrand de Jouvenel, David Easton, administration, but he did use the NOMOS series to and Talcott Parsons. advance the concept of administrative responsibility to the broad interdisciplinary community that he helped For our purposes, it is the contrast between the form as vehicle to explore the pressing problems of views of authority posed by Friedrich and by Arendt modern society. that is most useful to explore. By this time, Friedrich and Arendt were arguably the leading thinkers on The NOMOS Series authority and totalitarianism, so the variance in In 1955, Friedrich played the leading role in organ- their perspectives is worth examining in some detail. izing the American Society for Political and Legal Phi- Most relevant for our discussion, Friedrich used losophy. Th e new learned society was, as described by the essay on authority to revisit some of the themes Friedrich, “founded in 1955 by a group of friends in contained in his earlier writings on responsible the social sciences, law, and philosophy who share an administration. interest in the range of problems traditionally treated within the broad framework of political and legal Friedrich begins his essay with a statement of the philosophy” (1958a, v). Th e society’s activities were problem he will address: based around an annual conference and an annual volume on a topic determined for the annual confer- Ever since the eighteenth-century revolt against ence.6 Th e annual volume series was called NOMOS, the established authorities in church and state, which Friedrich described as “the broadest Greek term there has been a marked tendency among free- for law, because in this term there are also tradition- dom-loving intellectuals to view “authority” with a ally comprised the notions of a basic political order jaundiced eye, if not to denounce it. (1958b, 28) and of customs and a way of life (1958a, v). Th e series aff orded an opportunity for Friedrich to revisit for the Why has this been the case? Authority has been con- fi rst time since his debate with Finer the meaning of fused or confl ated with power; or, authority has been administrative responsibility and its critical impor- seen as related to tradition and faith rather than rea- tance to the balance of professional expertise and son. Friedrich quickly moves to advance the view that democratic accountability in modern society. there is a rational component of authority, and that analysis of this rational element is the key to under- Authority standing why authority is critical to the functioning of Th e fi rst volume of the NOMOS series, Authority, ap- modern society. To arrive at a proper understanding of peared in 1958 and represented the discussion on the the concept, Friedrich carefully separates the meaning topic at the 1956 meeting of the society. Like subse- of authority from power, and from a concern solely quent volumes in the series, it was not simply a set of with authority as a political phenomenon. Instead, it proceedings, but a combination of papers delivered becomes a particular sort of communications: at the meeting along with papers developed afterward from comments at the meeting or elicited by Friedrich When I speak of authority, I wish to say that “to round out and balance the presentation” (Friedrich the communications of a person possessing it 1958a, vi). Friedrich off ered a short preface, but not, at exhibit a very particular kind of relationship to least in his role as editor as opposed to contributor, an reason and reasoning. Such communication, introduction to the separate essays or a summation or whether opinions or commands, are not dem- synthesis at the end. Th is light editorial touch, initiated onstrated through rational discourse, but they in Authority, became characteristic of all the NOMOS possess the potentiality of reasoned elaboration— volumes. After all, this was a society of equals, and the they are “worthy of acceptance.” (1959b, 35)

476 Public Administration Review • May | June 2011 Such a defi nition allows Friedrich to expand the no- recent scholar has noted in a highly perceptive essay tion of authority from power or politics to roles based (Herbst 2006). on education, expertise, and professional standing, such as the scholar, teacher, lawyer, and doctor. It is Th e use of the past tense in the title of Hannah also strikingly similar to the justifi cation for respon- Arendt’s contribution, “What Was Authority?” imme- sible administration found in his earlier writings: the diately suggests a very diff erent perspective from that professionally trained civil servant, more than the of Friedrich. While Friedrich sees the potential for political appointee, is able, in fact obligated, to engage rational communication as the foundation of genuine in such communications. As he points out later in the authority, Arendt feels that “authority has vanished essay, the theory of authority drawn from this defi ni- from the modern world, and if we raise the question tion justifi es—indeed, demands—discretion to be what authority is, we can no longer fall back upon au- placed in the hands of administrators: thentic and undisputable experiences common to all” (1958, 81). Like Friedrich, Arendt bases her thoughts Authority interpreted as involving the potential on authority with reference to the diff erence between reasoning in interpersonal communications, power and authority and the need to see it as related that is to say as the capacity for reasoned elabo- to communications, but she comes up with a very ration, provides the clue to the problem of why diff erent conclusion. She poses a dichotomy between discretion is both indispensible and manageable authoritarian command and egalitarian persuasion in all political and legal systems. (1958b, 40) that does not include the possibility for the “reasoned elaboration” so basic to Friedrich’s position: It is important to point out that Friedrich’s idea of rationality is not limited to a strictly fact-based or Since authority always demands obedience, it positivistic approach; rather, “the fact that his deci- is commonly mistaken for some form of power sions, commands, or other communications could be or violence. Yet, authority precludes the use of reinforced by reasoned elaboration relating them to external means of coercion; where force is used, established values and beliefs will lend his acts that authority itself has failed. Authority, on the ‘authority’ without which discretion becomes arbitrary other hand, is incompatible with persuasion, abuse of power” (1958b, 45). which presupposes equality and works through a process of argumentation. Where arguments Friedrich thus not only accepts authority but also sees are used, authority is left in abeyance. Against it as a necessity for civilization. He ends his essay with the egalitarian order of persuasion stands the language reminiscent of Max Weber in “Politics as a authoritarian order which is always hierarchical. Vocation.”7 (1958, 82)

As long as we can maintain a measure of Th e diff erence between Friedrich and Arendt on authority, that is to say, as long as those who authority, so striking given their similar intellectual wield power recognize their responsibility for and cultural heritage, and their shared criticism of the discretionary acts in the sense of an obliga- Greek tradition in political theory,8 seems to rest on tion to retain the regard for the potentiality of two fundamental diff erences in outlook. First, Arendt reasoned elaboration, a constitutional order can does not give to reason and scientifi c method the role be maintained. Once this regard is lost—and it that Friedrich ascribes, to be the basis of noncoercive may be lost by man at large no longer accept- authority relations between those with knowledge ing reason as a guide—the night of meaningless and those who appreciate the need to defer to those violence is upon us. (1958b, 48) with greater knowledge and expertise. Th us, reasoned explanations from professionals do not fi gure into Th e argument advanced in the essay is largely the Arendt’s view of social dynamics. In fact, we are left same one advanced by Friedrich in his 1935 and without tradition and faith to counter power: 1940 works on responsible administration. Th e dif- ference is largely one of context: in the earlier works, To live in a political realm with neither author- Friedrich’s position on responsibility was challenged ity nor the concomitant awareness that the by those such as Finer who argued for traditional source of authority transcends power and those notions of bureaucratic and parliamentary control who are in power, means to be confronted and command. In the context of the 1950s, the anew, without the protection of tradition challenge to authority came from those who saw it and self-evident standards of behavior, by the as an element of totalitarianism or those who saw elementary problems of human living-together. the preconditions for its acceptance as relics of a (Arendt 1958, 110) fast-receding past order. Friedrich was also more explicit in drawing the connection between authority, Second, Friedrich’s interests reside more closely with responsibility, and eff ective communication, as one the practical application of his theory than do those

Carl J. Friedrich on Responsibility and Authority 477 of Arendt. Friedrich’s interest in professional admin- diff erence between the two scholars is Pennock’s fail- istration, the discretionary use of expert power, and ure to relate the concept to the work of professional the development of constitutional government in the administrators. aftermath of political collapse provided him a view of the actual operations of government that Arendt’s ca- By 1960, Friedrich must have known that his posi- reer did not. Or, to state it diff erently, Friedrich never tion on responsibility had won the debate on the stressed the tragic element in human existence that is relationship between the political and administra- so evident in the work of Arendt. tive aspects of modern government. Would he use the NOMOS essay as an opportunity to restate his Responsibility earlier position, or to stake out new territory? Th e Th e second of the NOMOS series, Community, was, answer is the former. “Th e Dilemma of Administra- in Friedrich’s own assessment, a disjointed and some- tive Responsibility” is largely a restatement, albeit what vague set of essays. Th e following volume, Re- a concise, focused, and highly persuasive one. Th at sponsibility, could be expected to have a much sharper the essay is a refl ection on his earlier views and not focus given Friedrich’s quarter century of concern with an attempt to move much beyond them is indicated the topic. Th e volume is divided into four major parts: by his several references to “Authority, Reason and responsibility in general, criminal responsibility, re- Discretion” in Authority and the 1940 essay, “Public sponsibility in modern government, and responsibility Policy and the Nature of Administrative Responsibil- of citizenship. Friedrich might have been expected to ity.” Th e essay is also relatively brief, only 14 pages in author the fi rst chapter, as he did in Community, given length. the central role that responsibility plays in this work. Instead, his essay, “Th e Dilemma of Administrative Friedrich begins the essay by linking the concept of Responsibility,” appears as the second in the section responsibility to public administration, stating that on responsibility in modern government. Nonetheless, “among the spheres within which the problem of the lead essay by J. Roland Pennock, titled “Th e Prob- responsibility is of primary importance, administra- lem of Responsibility,” echoes many of the thoughts tion ranks high. No large-scale administration, no of Friedrich’s prior work on the subject. rationalized bureaucracy, whether governmental or non-governmental, is possible, without making the Pennock begins with a statement that parallels Frie- staff members responsible for their work, and to their drich’s thinking on responsibility: superiors” (Friedrich 1960, 189). Th e connection of public administration to authority is made early in I believe that among various usages (possibly the essay. Noting that “responsible conduct is closely not all usages) of the word “responsibility” there linked to the problems of authority” Friedrich sees it is a common core of meaning, that part of the in principal–agent terms: core relates to the exercise of discretion, and that herein lies the modern problem of responsi- Whenever B is responsible to A, the presump- bility. (1960, 4) tion is that A has conferred upon B discretion to act upon certain issues, to decide them on A’s He follows a line of reasoning almost identical to that behalf, i. e., to choose between several avail- developed earlier by Friedrich. Pennock notes that able alternatives or to discover a new one, not “‘responsibility’” has two primary meanings, or what I arbitrarily, but in accordance with what the have called the core of meaning has two facets, (a) ac- situation requires. (1960, 190) countability and (b) the rational and moral exercise of discretionary power (or the capacity or disposition for As he identifi ed in 1940, the dilemma of responsibil- such exercise), and that each of these notions tends to ity for Friedrich lies in the existence of two aspects of fl avor the other” (1960, 13). Like Friedrich, Pennock responsible behavior, the personal and the functional. notes that responsibility “implies deliberation and Th e problem is exacerbated by the increasingly com- rationality as well as liability” (1960, 17), and must plex and technical nature of public policy: be paired with power, that is, the actor must have the necessary power to carry out the tasks for which she For this gulf of technical knowledge which is assumed to be responsible. Responsibility is thus separates the professional from the layman the “exercise of judgment and discretion in light of causes the most serious confl icts arising in the careful analysis and conscientious weighing of values” fi eld of administrative responsibility. Th ey are (1960, 27), identical to the idea of responsibility laid most serious in the government service, because out by Friedrich in his debates with Finer two decades the prevailing tendency to stress the will of the earlier. Pennock acknowledges his debt to Friedrich principal, be it the people or its representa- in a footnote, noting that “the classical statement of tives, creates an irresolvable confl ict. Only an this argument has been set forth by the editor of this approach which will bridge the gap between volume” in the 1940 essay (1960, 25). Th e only major the personal and the functional aspect of

478 Public Administration Review • May | June 2011 responsibility can show a way out of these dif- itself must be “adequately discussed and rationally fi culties. (1960, 193) adapted to changing situations and their require- ments” (1960, 202). What is this bridging approach? Friedrich here suc- cumbs to the temptation to dance on the grave of Discussion: Is Friedrich Still Relevant to the losing side in the Finer debates, noting that the Public Administration? development of the “science of public administration” Friedrich’s revisitation and refi nement of the concept “clinches the argument about the ‘inner check’ which of administrative responsibility in the NOMOS must reinforce the crumbling institution of parlia- volumes represent his fi nal contribution to the fi eld of mentary responsibility” (1960, 194). Th e dichotomy public administration. After Responsibility appeared, between policy formation and execution is seen to two subsequent volumes, Th e Public Interest (1962) be false. Th e responsible administrator, armed with and Rational Decision (1964), off ered Friedrich an discretionary authority, needs to be responsive to two opportunity to connect the major topic with public factors, technical knowledge and popular sentiment, administration, but in neither case was this opportu- in both policy formation and execution (1960, 199). nity taken. Friedrich’s vision of a professionalized and responsible public service remains his primary contri- Having assumed that the position on responsible ad- bution to public administration. From the 1930s to ministrative behavior he has staked out over the years his fi nal essay on the topic in Responsibility in 1960, has achieved universal acceptance, Friedrich turns to Friedrich established the importance of responsibility the issue of enforcement. Th is is perhaps the section of as transcending simple bureaucratic accountability to the essay that shows the greatest degree of originality require administrators to engage in reasoned judg- and development over his earlier works on the topic. ment when exercising discretion. His work stimulated First, he rejects the idea of dismissal as an approach to others in the fi eld to examine this critical aspect of enforcement as “crude” and instead lists fi ve meas- administration (Gaus 1936). By arguing that simple ures that have greater promise: disciplinary measures notions of accountability based on a clear distinction short of dismissal, promotional measures, fi nancial between policy making and policy execution were measures, judicial measures, and professional approval neither feasible or desirable, he helped establish the and disapproval (1960, 201). His preferred approach idea of public administration as a professional fi eld, is a melding of the judicial and the professional. Th is with responsibilities beyond simple accountability for echoes his thoughts on the value of administrative law actions within a hierarchy. as a factor in responsible administration, which date back to his works on Swiss government in 1932 and Since the Friedrich-Finer debates and the fi nal con- responsible administration in 1935 and 1940. If done tributions of Friedrich in the NOMOS essays, a good properly, “when such institutionalization occurs, the deal has fundamentally altered the debate over what professional standards become assimilated to judicial constitutes the proper grounds for administrative measures as a means of maintaining administrative responsibility. Public administration, either in its pro- responsibility” (1960, 201). Friedrich notes “favorable fessional or in its academic dimension, is profoundly signs” that this European approach may be develop- diff erent than it was in the period of time, from the ing in the English-speaking nations, but he off ers few 1930s to the 1960s, that Friedrich witnessed. Faith in specifi cs on the professionalization of administration government, and especially in the role of bureaucracy, in the United States. has been replaced by cynicism and a lack of trust. Th e uncomplicated view of administrative agencies imple- Friedrich concludes the essay with a passionate appeal menting legislation in a direct and monopolistic man- to view administrative responsibility within the con- ner has been challenged by the reform ideas of New text of public policy development: Public Management, the rise of “hollow government,” and third-party policy implementation. Th e view of Only within well-developed policy can respon- public responsibility and the public interest as derived sible conduct on the part of administrative from political theory has been countered by ideas offi cials be expected. As we have seen, well- whose theoretical foundations rest in economics, such developed policy means a policy developed with as public choice theory and market economics. Public the active and responsible participation of the management is now seen in the context of networks, offi cials who are to execute it. (1960, 201). where accountability and responsibility are diff use and often the question is whether anyone is in charge and Th e dilemma of the title, between personal and answerable to the public. functional responsibility, is thus related to the need to dispense with the idea that public policy formation is As it was for Friedrich and Finer in the years before the task of political offi cials and not professional civil World War II, the key issue for public administration servants. It is not enough that responsible administra- is the appreciation and proper use of administra- tors exercise discretion in a reasoned manner. Policy tive discretion. Th e successors to Finer, whether they

Carl J. Friedrich on Responsibility and Authority 479 acknowledge his position or simply follow the same public administration, largely the contributions of logic, seek ways to limit discretion either by admon- Friedrich and one or two others in each volume. What ishing political institutions to create policy that is is most useful, though, is the recognition that the unambiguous and restrictive, or by enforcing strict major problems faced by today’s administrators can be standards of accountability and performance (Moe traced through historical analysis and the literature of and Gilmour 1995). Th ose who tack more to Frie- political philosophy to the present. drich’s position on the need for inner checks stress the inevitability of administrative discretion and the need A third limitation of Friedrich’s work is perhaps his to exercise judgment in ways that meet high ethi- assumption that administrative behavior be measured cal standards (Cooper 2006), dialogue with citizens by its quotient of rationality. His formulas are not (Denhardt and Denhardt 2007), or administrative only ungrounded in empirical evidence but also rela- leadership to correct the fl aws in the constitutional tively optimistic—one might even say naive—regard- order (Behn 1998; Bertelli and Lynn 2003). ing the acceptance by politicians and the public of the expanded role of nonelected career civil servants. Although it would be misleading to characterize Th e belief in reasoned analysis and scientifi c analysis Friedrich as an ethicist, more than any other factor, it of issues downplayed the ethical issues involved in the has been the development of administrative ethics as a wicked problems encountered in public policy and prominent element in public administration that has administration. Friedrich’s rather elitist ideas of ad- kept Friedrich’s work part of the ongoing dialogue in ministrators educating the citizenry based on superior the fi eld. Th e Friedrich-Finer debates highlighted the knowledge runs counter to ideas of administrators as issue of whether external or internal controls should facilitators of dialogue between citizens and govern- guide administrative behavior. Since the time of the ment. Again, it has fallen to later writers in public debates, there has been an explosion of external ethical administration such as Terry Cooper (2006), Janet controls—ethics laws, standards and codes of conduct, and Robert Denhardt (2007), and Rosemary O’Leary inspectors general and internal auditors—and a grow- (2006) to explore the ethical dimension of responsi- ing body of literature arguing for an administrative bility under the less than optimal conditions of actual ethic focused on inner checks and a concern for the governance activities. public interest (Burke 1986; Cooper 2006). Account- ability to political and administrative superiors has Despite their limitations, Friedrich’s thoughts on been seen as requiring balance with a broader sense of administrative responsibility and political authority responsibility to citizens and the community (Den- remain relevant today. By seeing responsibility as the hardt and Denhardt 2007; O’Leary 2006). most signifi cant issue raised by the development of the modern administrative state, Friedrich combined It is important to recognize, however, that, especially public administration’s concern for administrative by today’s standards, Friedrich’s contribution is lim- competence with deeper questions of institutional and ited in several important respects. First is his disinter- personal responsibility in a constitutional democracy. est in moving beyond the theoretical to empirical Th ey are, as Friedrich notes, only a chapter in dealing examinations of how administrators actually perform with the competing demands for individual freedom their tasks and use discretion. While he did venture and the collective public good in a constitutional into applied research, especially in regard to the devel- order. opment of constitutional government in the aftermath of World War II, he did little applied work directly Notes related to public administration. Had he chosen to 1. Pennock (1960, 5 n.) provides a useful discussion of the use do so, it would probably have been in examining the of the term “responsibility” in the literature on politics. Th e exercise of professional discretion in policy formation earliest example of the term in the Oxford English Dictionary and execution, and in the personnel rules and proce- is from Alexander Hamilton’s discussion of the concept in dures best adapted to professionalized administration. Federalist No. 63, published in 1787. Pennock notes, however, It fell on such later writers as Frederick Mosher (1968) that Jeremy Bentham used the term 11 years earlier in A Frag- and Don K. Price (1962) to examine in detail the ment of Government, and it was used as early as 1643 in regard impact of professionalization within administrative to the king being “responsible” to Parliament. Most agree, agencies.9 though, that Hamilton’s Federalist No. 63 was the fi rst example of political theory based around the concept. Th e approach taken in NOMOS, of collecting a 2. Th e title of the series, NOMOS, is usually but not always series of essays on broad topics with little editorial treated with all capitals; I use that usage throughout. explanation of the connections between the separate 3. His work appeared in such major journals as Foreign Aff airs, contributions, makes the contribution of the series Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, to public administration problematic. Even the most American Journal of Sociology, Political Science Quarterly, Ameri- relevant of the group, Authority and Responsibility, can Political Science Review, Journal of Politics, Public Opinion have only modest value to today’s major issues in Quarterly, Review of Politics, Public Administration Review,

480 Public Administration Review • May | June 2011 Harvard Educational Review, Western Political Quarterly, Public awareness of authority based on immediate political experi- Policy, Harvard Law Review, Orbis, and many others. For those ence” (1958, 97–98); instead, political theory was based on who categorize by specialty, the most common designation for utopian notions of the polis as a way of fusing the individual Friedrich was political theorist. But a review of his corpus of and the state. works suggests that political theory was more a foundation for 9. While serving as Frederick Mosher’s research assistant in the all of his work than a narrow specialization. 1970s, I do not recall him referencing Friedrich as a source 4. Friedrich’s harsh criticism of the British failure to address the of inspiration for his work on professionalism. He credited threat posed by Nazi Germany in the 1930s is an often over- Don K. Price and his work on science and government as a looked aspect of the Friedrich-Finer debate. Finer responded in major factor in examining government professionalization in kind by associating the sort of administrative discretion favored Democracy and the Public Service. Mosher was, however, famil- by Friedrich with a form of despotism associated with such iar with the NOMOS series and acquired the fi rst volumes for regimes as Nazi Germany, a harsh accusation given Friedrich’s his private library collection. expatriate status. 5. Finer’s choice of the new journal founded by the American References Society for Public Administration must surely have pleased the Arendt, Hannah. 1958. What Was Authority? In Authority, edited society’s founders, who anticipated that Public Administration by Carl J. Friedrich, 81–112. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Review would become the major forum for debating the critical University Press. issues of the fi eld. Behn, Robert D. 1998. What Right Do Public Managers Have to 6. Th e annual meeting of the American Society for Political and Lead? Public Administration Review 58(3): 209–24. Legal Philosophy rotates on a three-year cycle in conjunction Bertelli, Anthony M., and Laurence E. Lynn, Jr. 2003. Managerial with the annual meetings of the American Association of Law Responsibility. Public Administration Review 63(3): 259–68. Schools, the American Political Science Association, and the Burke, John P. 1986. Bureaucratic Responsibility. Baltimore: Johns American Philosophical Association; the presidency of the Hopkins University Press. society also rotates among the three disciplines. Cooper, Terry L. 2006. Th e Responsible Administrator: An Approach 7. Although the language is similar, Friedrich is critical of Weber’s to Ethics for the Administrative Role. 5th ed. San Francisco: confl ation of authority and legitimacy. In a footnote, he notes Jossey-Bass. that “the close relation between the psychological and the Denhardt, Janet V., and Robert B. Denhardt. 2007. Th e New Public nominalist misinterpretation of phenomena like authority is Service: Serving, Not Steering. Expanded ed. Armonk, NY: M. strikingly illustrated in the approach of Max Weber, who, con- E. Sharpe. fusing authority with legitimacy, misses one of the key aspects Finer, Herman. 1936. Better Government Personnel. Political of authority, by minimizing its rational aspect” (1958b, 32). Science Quarterly 51(4): 569–99. Somewhat curiously, Friedrich does not cite Weber extensively ———. 1941. Administrative Responsibility in Democratic in his treatment of bureaucracy and political responsibility. In Government. Public Administration Review 1(4): 335–50. his major public administration essays, in 1935 and 1940, he Friedrich, Carl J. 1935. Responsible Government Service under relies instead on American students of public administration the American Constitution. In Problems of the American Public such as Leonard White and Luther Gulick to derive his descrip- Service, by Carl J. Friedrich et al., Monograph no. 7. New tion of bureaucracy. York: McGraw-Hill. 8. Friedrich’s criticism of Greek political theory is most evident ———. 1937. Th e Rise and Decline of the Spoils Tradition. Annals in his 1940 essay, “Greek Political Heritage and Totalitarian- of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 189: ism” (Friedrich 1940a). Friedrich’s argument is that the Greek 10–16. political tradition exalts the state, which, in turn, is based ———. 1939. Th e Deifi cation of the State. Review of Politics 1(1): solely on power. Friedrich considers the legacy of Greek politi- 18–30. cal thought “the adoration of power for its own sake” (1940a, ———. 1940a. Greek Political Heritage and Totalitarianism. 224). In other writings, he also condemns the Greek tradition Review of Politics 2(2): 218–25. for failing to come up with a theory of federalism that could ———. 1940b. Public Policy and the Nature of Administrative unite the micro-states of ancient Greece politically. Friedrich Responsibility. Public Policy 1(1): 1–20. concludes his essay, written as Europe descended into war and ———. 1943. Military Government as a Step toward Self-Rule. barbarism, with a defense of the role of religion outside the Public Opinion Quarterly 7(1): 77–89. control of the state as a counterforce to the exaltation of the ———. 1945. Planning for the Greater Boston Metropolitan Area. state. Noting the line of thinking from the Greeks through Public Administration Review 5(2): 113–26. Cromwell, Bonaparte, Hegel, Marx, and fascism, he opines ———. 1947a. Th e Ideology of the United Nations Charter and that if we continue this line of state worship and state power, the Philosophy of Peace of Immanuel Kant. Journal of Politics “culture will wither and perhaps die, as the ruthless pursuit of 9(1): 10–30. power in the name of the secular church-states leads to ever ———. 1947b. Political Science in the United States in Wartime. more exhausting struggles for power and supremacy. Th erefore, American Political Science Review 41(5): 978–89. let us beware of the heritage of the Greek polis: it is a veritable ———. 1948. Representation and Constitutional Reform in Trojan horse, smuggled into our Christian civilization” (1940a, Europe. Western Political Quarterly 1(2): 124–30. 225). Arendt bases her major critique of Greek thought on ———. 1949a. Rebuilding the German Constitution, I. American the fact that “in the realm of Greek political life there was no Political Science Review 43(3): 461–82.

Carl J. Friedrich on Responsibility and Authority 481 ———. 1949b. Rebuilding the German Constitution, II. American Gaus, John M. 1936. Th e Responsibility of Public Administrators. Political Science Review 43(4): 704–20. In Th e Frontiers of Public Administration, edited by John M. ———. 1950. Th e Political Th eory of the New Democratic Gaus, Leonard B. White, and Marshall Dimock, 26–45. Constitutions. Review of Politics 12(2): 215–24. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1936. ———. 1953. Th e World Signifi cance of the New Constitution. Herbst, Susan. 2006. Legitimate Power in a Mediated Age: Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science Revisiting Carl J. Friedrich’s “Authority, Reason and 285: 42–47. Discretion.” Political Communication 23(3): 285–90. ———, ed. 1958a. Authority. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Jackson, Michael. 2009. Responsibility versus Accountability in the Press. Friedrich-Finer Debate. Journal of Management History 15(1): ———. 1958b. Authority, Reason and Discretion. In Authority, 66–77. edited by Carl J. Friedrich, 28–48. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Moe, Ronald C., and Robert S. Gilmour. 1995. Rediscovering University Press. Principles of Public Administration: Th e Neglected Foun- ———, ed. 1959a. Community. New York: Liberal Arts Press. dation of Public Law. Public Administration Review 55(2): ———, ed. 1959b. Th e Concept of Community in the History of 135–39. Political and Legal Philosophy. In Community, edited by Carl J. Mosher, Frederick C. 1968. Democracy and the Public Service. New Friedrich, 3–24. New York: Liberal Arts Press. York: Oxford University Press. ———. 1960. Th e Dilemma of Administrative Responsibility. In O’Leary, Rosemary. 2006. Th e Ethics of Dissent: Managing Guerrilla Responsibility, edited by Carl J. Friedrich, 189–202. New York: Government. Washington, DC: CQ Press. Liberal Arts Press. Pennock, J. Roland. 1960. Th e Problem of Responsibility. In ———, ed. 1962. Th e Public Interest. New York: Atherton Press. Responsibility, edited by Carl J. Friedrich, 3–27. New York: ———, ed. 1964. Rational Decision. New York: Atherton Press. Liberal Arts Press. Friedrich, Carl J., and Taylor Cole. 1932. Responsible Bureaucracy: Price, Don K. 1962. Government and Science: Th eir Dynamic A Study of the Swiss Civil Service. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Relation in American Democracy. New York: Oxford University University Press. Press.

SAVE THE DATE!

2011 Southeastern Conference for Public Administration (SECoPA)

September 21-24, 2011 HOTEL MONTELEONE New Orleans, Louisiana

Visit: http://www.aspaonline.org/secopa

482 Public Administration Review • May | June 2011