No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 August 2014
Structural reorganization of the administrative departments and independent agencies of the national government has been on the agendas of the President and Congress almost continuously since World War I. A brief review of the principal developments during the period between the two wars will give us perspective as we undertake to present the problem in its current setting.
Planned and arranged by Fritz Morstein Marx, Washington, D.C. The first three articles in this symposium appeared in the preceding issue of the Review.
1 For detailed accounts of structural changes and proposals, see Meriam, Lewis and Schmeckebier, Laurence F., Reorganization of the National Government (Washington, 1939), pp. 181 ff.Google Scholar; and the articles by Dr. Schmeckebier in this Review, 1933 to 1941.
2 Senate Doc. No. 302, 67th Cong., 4th Sess., Feb. 13, 1923.
3 One of the most interesting individual plans was submitted by C. E. McGuire, assistant to the director of the Institute of Economics, later a division of the Brookings Institution. He had previously outlined his ideas in an article in the Harvard Graduates' Magazine for June, 1920. His plan called for an Executive Secretarit to provide departmental liaison for the President, for seven administrative departments (State, Treasury, Commerce, Industry and Communication, National Defense, Justice, Agriculture, and Public Welfare), and for a Council of Independent Establishments. See Joint Committee on the Reorganization of the Administrative Branch of the Government, Hearings, 68th Cong., 1st Sess., Jan. 7–31, 1924, pp. 237 ff.
4 House Doc. No. 356, and Senate Doc. No. 128, 68th Cong., 1st Sess., 1924.
5 For President Hoover's special message, see House Doc. No. 254, 72d Cong., 1st Sess., 1932. The Economy Committee's report was printed as House Rep. No. 1126, 72d Cong., 1st Sess., 1932.
6 For the content of President Hoover's orders and supporting reasons, see House Doc. No. 493, 72d Cong., 2d Sess., 1933; also Meriam and Schmeckebier, op. cit., pp. 191 ff.
7 Most of these changes were effected by Executive Order No. 6166 of June 10, 1933, and its subsequent amendments. Cf. House Doc. No. 69, 73d Cong., 1st Sess.
8 Executive Order No. 6726 of May 29, 1934, House Doc. No. 390, 73d Cong., 2d Sess.
9 Senate Rep. No. 1275, 75th Cong., 1st Sess. For a summary of this report, see Short, Lloyd M., “An Investigation of the Executive Agencies of the United States Government,” in this Review, Vol. 33 (1939), pp. 60 ff.Google Scholar
10 President's Committee on Administrative Management, Report with Special Studies (Washington, 1937), pp. 31 ff.Google Scholar
11 For a history of the several proposed reorganization bills, see Meriam and Schmeckebier, op. cit., pp. 222 ff.
12 For the full text of these plans, see House Docs. Nos. 262, 288, 76th Cong., 1st Sess., and House Docs. Nos. 681, 692, and 784, 76th Cong., 3d Sess. See also U. S. Code, Tit. 5, par. 133t. It may be added that Congress, by act of February 24, 1945 (59 Stat. 5), voted to restore independent status to the Federal Loan Agency, which in 1942 had been transferred to the Department of Commerce by Executive Order No. 9071.
13 For commentaries on administrative organization in wartime, see Brownlow, Louis, “Reconversion of the Federal Administrative Machinery from War to Peace,” Public Administration Review, Vol. 4 (1944), pp. 309 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gulick, Luther, “War Organization of the Federal Government,” in this Review, Vol. 38 (1944), pp. 1166 ffGoogle Scholar.
14 For the text of these plans, see House Docs. Nos. 594, 595, and 596, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., 1946.
15 For congressional committee action, see House Con. Res. Nos. 151, 154, and 155, and Senate Con. Res. Nos. 64, 65, and 66, 79th Cong., 2d Sess.; hearings before the House Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., on House Con. Res. Nos. 151, 154, and 155 (June, 1946); House Reps. Nos. 2326, 2327, 2328, and Senate Reps. Nos. 1670, 1671, and 1672, 79th Cong., 2d Sess.
16 On this subject, see New York Times, Apr. 14 and June 16, 1946.
17 For discussions of these alternatives, see Wallace, Schuyler C., Federal Departmentalization (New York, 1941), ch. IIIGoogle Scholar, and Meriam and Schmeckebier, op. cit., pp. 159 ff.
18 Cf. Brecht, Arnold and Glaser, Comstock, The Art and Technique of Administration in German Ministries (Cambridge, 1940), esp. chs. II–VIGoogle Scholar. See also Summary of Discussions on the Streamlining of Departmental Headquarters, Special Committee on Comparative Administration, Committee on Public Administration, Social Science Research Council (May 29, 1945), mimeoGoogle Scholar.
19 Woods, E. Charles, “A Proposed Reorganization of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government,” in this Review, Vol. 37 (1943), pp. 476 ffGoogle Scholar. Another war-time proposal for drastic reorganization called for a cabinet of seven departmental secretaries—War and Navy, Commerce and Labor, Agriculture and Interior, State, Treasury, Justice, and Post Office. See Pulliam, Abbott, War Management in Washington, Citizens' Bureau of Governmental Research of New York State (Sept., 1942)Google Scholar.
20 For a thoughtful discussion of this alternative, see Macmahon, Arthur W., “The Future Organizational Pattern of the Executive Branch,” in this Review, Vol. 38 (1944), pp. 1187 ff.Google Scholar
21 Printed in part in the Whitley Bulletin for June, 1946, p. 48Google Scholar. See also the interesting editorial comment on this address from the London Times, ibid., pp. 48–49.
22 “Administrative Efficiency Within a Democratic Polity,” in New Horizons in Public Administration (University, Ala., 1945), pp. 37–38Google Scholar.
23 For an interesting discussion of intradepartmental organization within the Department of State, see Arthur W. Macmahon, “Function and Area in the Administration of International Affairs,” ibid., pp. 119 ff.
24 Some of the more recent contributions to the literature on this subject are: Washington-Field Relationships in the Federal Service, by Stone, Donald C. and Others, Graduate School, United States Department of Agriculture (Washington, 1942)Google Scholar; Federal Field Offices, Legislative Reference Service, Library of Congress, Senate Doc. No. 22, 78th Cong., 1st Sess., 1943; Latham, Earl G., “Executive Management and the Federal Field Service,” Public Administration Review, Vol. 5 (1945), pp. 16 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; William C. Carey, “Control and Supervision of Field Offices,” ibid., Vol. 6 (1946), pp. 20 ff.; and Millett, John D., “Field Organization and Staff Supervision,” in New Horizons in Public Administration, cit. above, pp. 96 ff.Google Scholar
25 Carey, loc. cit., p. 20.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.