Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-06-01T14:59:32.525Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

BETWEEN FAIRNESS AND EFFICIENCY: TESTING WILSON’S THEORY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 September 2022

Sophie Agulhon Open the ORCID record for Sophie Agulhon [Opens in a new window]  and
Thomas Michael Mueller Open the ORCID record for Thomas Michael Mueller [Opens in a new window]
Sophie Agulhon
Affiliation:
Sophie Agulhon: sophie.agulhon@univ-paris8.fr
Thomas Michael Mueller
Affiliation:
Thomas Michael Mueller: thomas.mueller@univ-paris8.fr.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

During his first presidential term, faced with antitrust law reform, Woodrow Wilson had to deal with the reconstitution of conflicting values. These were, on the one hand, the importance of efficiency, guaranteed by the role of experts capable of effectively managing public administration; and, on the other hand, the importance of public and democratic participation, and therefore respect for traditional democratic values. Wilson faced a theoretical impasse in defining concepts such as competition and fairness when developing antitrust laws and had to put his theory of administration to the test. He opted for a pragmatic approach, based on managerial ideas and integrating the figure of the manager, expert in know-how.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , March 2023 , pp. 94 - 116
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the History of Economics Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The authors acknowledge this journal’s editorial and reviewing work, and LED (Paris 8 University) for funding.

References

REFERENCES

Brandeis, Louis D. 1912. “Business—A Profession. The New Haven—An Unregulated Monopoly.” Boston Journal, December 13, 1912, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
Brandeis, Louis D. 1918. Board of Trade of Chicago v. United States. 246 U.S.: 231–238.Google Scholar
Bridgman, Todd, Cummings, Stephen, and Ballard, John. 2018. “Who Built Maslow’s Pyramid? A History of the Creation of Management Studies’ Most Famous Symbol and Its Implications for Management Education.” Academy of Management Learning & Education 18 (1): 81–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandler, Alfred D. 1977. The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, John M. 1914. “Recent Trust Decisions and Business: Discussion.” American Economic Review 4 (1): 192–193.Google Scholar
Clements, Kendrick A. 1998. “Woodrow Wilson and Administrative Reform.” Part II, “The Buck Stops Here: Decision Making in the Oval Office.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 28 (2): 320–336.Google Scholar
Cook, Brian J. 1995. “At the Crossroads of the Real and the Ideal: Woodrow Wilson’s Theory of Administration.” Administrative Theory & Praxis 17 (2): 15–28.Google Scholar
Cook, Brian J. 1998. “Efficiency, Responsibility, and Law: Public Administration in the Early Political Rhetoric of Woodrow Wilson.” Administrative Theory & Praxis 20 (1): 43–54.Google Scholar
Cook, Brian J. 2002. “Expertise, Discretion, and Definite Law: Public Administration in Woodrow Wilson’s Presidential Campaign Speeches of 1912.” Administrative Theory & Praxis 24 (3): 485–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, Brian J. 2007. Democracy and Administration. Woodrow Wilson’s Ideas and the Challenges of Public Management. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Craig, Douglas. B. 2013. Progressives at War: William G. McAdoo and Newton D. Baker, 1863–1941. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, Douglas. B. 2018. “Success Has Many Fathers.” Australasian Journal of American Studies 37 (2): 1–26.Google Scholar
Cummings, Stephen, and Bridgman, Todd. 2014. “The Origin of Management Is Sustainability: Recovering an Alternative Foundation for Management.” Academy of Management Proceedings 2014 (1): 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dallek, Robert. 1991. “Woodrow Wilson, Politician.” Wilson Quarterly (1976–) 15 (4): 106–114.Google Scholar
Diamond, William. 1943. The Economic Thought of Woodrow Wilson. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Drucker, Peter. 2008. The Essential Drucker: The Best of Sixty Years of Peter Drucker’s Essential Writings on Management. New York: First Collins Business Essentials.Google Scholar
Eisenach, Eldon J. 1994. The Lost Promise of Progressivism. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Ely, Richard T. 1938. Ground under Our Feet. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Elzinga Kenneth, G., and Webber, Micah. 2017. “Louis Brandeis and Contemporary Antitrust Enforcement.” Touro Law Review 33 (1): 277–321.Google Scholar
Fiorito, Luca. 2012. “When Economics Faces the Economy: John Bates Clark and the 1914 Antitrust Legislation.” Review of Political Economy 25 (1): 139–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, Henry. [1922] 2010. My Life and Work. Las Vegas: IAP.Google Scholar
Gond, Jean-Pascal, and Igalens, Jacques. 2018. “Genèse de la responsabilité sociale de l’entreprise.” In Gond, J.-P. and Igalens, J., La responsabilité sociale de l’entreprise. Paris: Que sais-je?, pp. 7–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haber, Samuel. 1964. Efficiency and Uplift: Scientific Management in the Progressive Era 1890–1920. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hays, Samuel P. 1999. Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency: The Progressive Conservation Movement, 1890–1920. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heald, Morrell. 1970. The Social Responsibilities of Business: Company and Community, 1900–1960. New Brunswick, NJ: Press of Case West Reserve University.Google Scholar
Hovenkamp, Herbert. 1991. Enterprise and American Law. 1836–1937. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hovenkamp, Herbert. 2005. The Antitrust Enterprise. Principle and Execution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khan, Lina. 2018. “The New Brandeis Movement: America’s Antimonopoly Debate.” Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 9 (3): 131–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khan, S. Rahman. 2012. “The Sociology of Elites.” Annual Review of Sociology 38: 361–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraines, Oscar. 1960. “Brandeis’ Philosophy of Scientific Management.” Western Political Quarterly 13 (1): 191–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonard, Thomas C. 2016. Illiberal Reformers: Race, Eugenics, & American Economics in the Progressive Era. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Link, Arthur S. 1947. The Road to the White House. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
McCandless, Sean A., and Guy, Mary E.. 2013. “One More Time: What Did Woodrow Wilson Really Mean about Politics and Administration?” Administrative Theory & Praxis 35 (3): 356–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGahan, Anita. M 2020. “Where Does an Organization’s Responsibility End? Identifying the Boundaries on Stakeholder Claims.” Academy of Management Discoveries 6 (1): 8–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milkis, Sidney, and Mileur, Jerome M., eds. 1999. Progressivism and the New Democracy. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
Mulder, John M. 1978. Woodrow Wilson: The Years of Preparation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Newlands, Francis G. 1912. “Possibilities of a Democratic Administration.” The Independent, October 3, 1912. Senate—62D Congress No. 988: 1–9.Google Scholar
Pestritto, Ronald J. 2005. Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism. New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
Philippon, Thomas. 2019. The Great Reversal: How America Gave Up on Free Markets. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ramírez, Carlos D., and Eigen-Zucchi, Christian. 1998. “Why Did the Clayton Act Pass? An Analysis of the Interest Group Hypothesis.” George Mason University WP No. 98.03.Google Scholar
Rosenbloom, David. 2008. “The Politics–Administration Dichotomy in U.S. Historical Context.” Public Administration Review 68 (1): 57–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosser, Christian. 2010. “Woodrow Wilson’s Administrative Thought and German Political Theory.” Public Administration Review 70 (4): 547–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruane, Kathleen A. 2017. Pre-Merger Review and Challenges under the Clayton Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act. Congressional Research Service Report.Google Scholar
Ruiz, George W. 1989. “The Ideological Convergence of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.” Part II, “Wilson and the Progressive Era.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 19 (1): 159–177.Google Scholar
Sager, Fritz, and Rosser, Christian. 2009. “Weber, Wilson, and Hegel: Theories of Modern Bureaucracy.” Public Administration Review 69 (6): 1136–1147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savino, David. 2009. “Louis D. Brandeis and His Role Promoting Scientific Management as a Progressive Movement.” Journal of Management History 15 (1): 38–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schein, Edgar. 2015. “Organizational Psychology Then and Now: Some Observations.” Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 2 (1): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, William H. S. 1914. “The Trade Commission Act.” American Economic Review 4 (4): 840–855.Google Scholar
Stoller, Matt. 2019. Goliath: The 100-Year War between Monopoly Power and Democracy. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks.Google Scholar
Strum, Philippa. 1984. Louis D. Brandeis: Justice for the People. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Frederick W. 1911. The Principles of Scientific Management. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers.Google Scholar
Tepper, Jonathan. 2019. The Myth of Capitalism: Monopolies and the Death of Competition. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
Thies, Clifford F., and Pecquet, Gary M.. 2010. “The Shaping of a Future President’s Economic Thought: Richard R. Ely and Woodrow Wilson at ‘The Hopkins.’” Independent Review 15 (2): 257–277.Google Scholar
Van Riper, Paul P. 1984. “The Politics-Administration Dichotomy: Concept or Reality.” In Rabin, J. and Bowman, J. S., eds., Politics and Administration: Woodrow Wilson and Public Administration. New York: Marcel Dekker, pp. 203–218.Google Scholar
Wallis, John J. 2006. “The Concept of Systematic Corruption in American History.” In Glaeser, E. L. and Goldin, C., eds., Corruption and Reform: Lessons from America’s Economic History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 23–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Woodrow. 1885. Congressional Government: A Study in American Politics. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
Wilson, Woodrow. 1887. “The Study of Administration.” Political Science Quarterly 2 (2): 197–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Woodrow. 1889. The State: Elements of Historical and Practical Politics. A Sketch for Institutional History and Administration. Boston: D. C. Heath & Co. Publishers.Google Scholar
Winerman, Marc. 2003. “The Origins of the FTC: Concentration, Cooperation, Control, and Competition.” Antitrust Law Journal 71 (1): 1–97.Google Scholar
Wu, Tim. 2018. The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the Gilded Age. New York: Columbia Global Reports.CrossRefGoogle Scholar