BOOK REVIEW

 Emmanuel A. Turuka

Western Michigan University

Introduction

The great economic depression of the 1930s and WWII forced President Franklin D. Roosevelt to come up with New Deal initiatives. The Great Depression resulted in rapid declines in the production and sale of goods and a sudden, severe rise in unemployment. More than 15 million Americans, one quarter of the nation’s workforce, were unemployed. President Roosevelt decided to create the program known as the New Deal to overcome the effects of the Great Depression. Then he called on the federal government to create more jobs through public works and to promote recovery by regulating production, prices and working conditions. These programs increased employment and forced the government to establish new agencies to take over the new duties rather than continuing using the old institutions. (p.5). It is from this background David H. Rosenbloom came up with the book Building a Legislative Centered Public Administration.

This book illustrates an understanding how the passage of New Deal initiatives marked the rise of a legislative-centered administration with Congress is shaping the structure, focuses on agencies as the extensions, and vesting much of its legislative authority in the hands of administrative agencies. (p.4)

The author highlights the legislation that followed the post WW II growth of the administrative state, especially the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946. Through the reform, Congress had lost its sense of institutional role. This is because the legislature had been overwhelmed by rapid growth in the federal government‘s role in the economy and society. As a result of the expansion of federal administration there were years of budget deficits. Congress was uneasy about all the expansive development; hence, it was forced by federal administrative state to reposition itself. According to Rosenbloom (2002) “Congress had lost its mission and was consequently atrophying and become irrelevant” (p.1). In solving this problem, Congress established a relationship with large and more extensive agencies and found a way internally to meet the demands stemming from policy proliferation and reelection.

The growing complexity of many public policies gave Congress no alternatives but to share policymaking power. Rosenbloom (2002), argues that  “Administration is actually a continuation of the legislative process: the primary purpose of congressional direction of administration is to improve the legislative functions by providing feedback, reducing slippage through, maladministration, and securing more faithful implementation of statutory goals” (p.62; Stillman II, 1982). Therefore the rule making became a common way for Congress to delegate to federal agencies while retaining control. Congress provided authority over many of these agencies on an on going basis. Hence, the result has been legislative- centered public administration.

The author argues that the cooperative effort by legislators and federal administrators to make policy has not always been peaceful. Federal agencies had traditionally been looked upon as the implementers of public policy. They were allowed some discretion in the implementation of the law but with the passage of the 1946 legislation, there evolved a “collective understanding by Congress that because agencies exercise legislative power to regulate the economy and society they should be considered as adjuncts, (p.21).

Rosenbloom argues that legislative-centered public administration is the only answer the nation has come up with tried to answer the following question: what is the correct role for Congress in the administration of the federal government after the New Deal and WW II initiatives? In this regard, Congress is responsible for administrative organization authority and procedures as well as for directing supervision and controlling activity. There is no strict dichotomy between politics and administration. Administrative decisions and actions are often political because they allocate benefits and burdens like rule making vis-à-vis enforcement of both personnel and budgeting systems. According to Rosenbloom, legislative-centered public administration rejects the political administration dichotomy; it is difficult to separate constitutional structure and procedure from administration because public administration includes legislative functions. (p.58, Ostrom  Stillman)

 The author contends that one of the results of legislative-centered administration has been the adoption of legislative values like openness, public accountability, representativeness and responsiveness by many public agencies. As Waldo argues administrator must focus on who gets what, and who doesn’t get anything and why? (Waldo). Another result has been the transfer of much constituency work from Congress to the agencies (105). The purpose of this is to make Congress more efficient and to strengthen it as an institution. According to this philosophy, politics and administration are not two antagonistic elements because each part depends very much on the other part for the effective accomplishment of its sphere of actions. In fact, they are two parts of the same coin, and in reality, they work jointly no matter what. What comes to mind is that administrative agencies have become central to government and politics, but at the same time, administrators are required to adhere to legislative values when making rules because the responsibility to do so has been delegated to them by Congress.

Before turning to what is missing in this book let us look at the difference between Rosenbloom outlooks with Stillman. Rosenbloom shows the development and involvement in agency in American administration, while Stillman reminds us that the American public administration, was constructed by principle of strong individualistic, and more values,

In discussing what is missing in Rosebloom book I agree with the author’s advice, “critics of legislative-centered public administration would probably do better to work within its parameters than reject it entirely” (p.155). Because of its theoretical coherence, historical background, and a measure of legitimacy, as Frank Goodnow held that “while the age that has passed was a one of constitutional, the present age is one of administrative reform whether we like or not because of reform legislative centered public administration is here to stay.

The author failed to explain in detailed the lack of clarifications in case of theoretical ambiguity concerning the legitimacy of public administration, in execution of issues of delegation, which mighty arises from policy making, judicial review and etc. Under the New deal, administrative officials were increasing being assigned responsibility for accomplishing complex and controversial goals with few reliable protections against the abuse of power, because such ambiguity can perpetuate inefficient in the long run. This situation needs more clarifications (Derteli, Finer, 1940, Friedrich 1940. Goodnow).

The critical problem, which one can see, is that when the administrative agencies become the fourth branch of the government how cans one make an analysis about the role of enforcement of administration? Rosenbloom argues that “It is clearly observed here that, there is no guarantee that enforcement will be fair as the separation of powers collapse into the agencies, administrators becoming the lawmakers, prosecutors, juries and judges of their own laws” (p.31). There is a need to harmonize this situation for efficiency, transparency and responsiveness in fulfilling the duties. The author has not provided enough explanation on how to handle this situation when the problem arises. On the same line Herman Fines argued that responsible administration in a democracy could only be ensured through external control; they are responsible to the elected representative of the public. (Finer, 1940.p.336, Frank Goodnow pp.97-98)

Conclusion

 The author has made clear the relationship between Congress and Federal agencies, especially, after the Great Depression and WW II and the New Deal initiatives which were introduced by President Roosevelt. The book is very useful for public administrators because it creates a foundation of Public Administration. Successful public administrators are those skilled with management professions and public law knowledge, and have the ability to practice it more openly.  The administration is much more about performance and doing the right thing at the right time. Despite the shortcomings, ‘Building a Legislative Centered Public Administration’ is one of the best books in the context of the American practice of public administration. I recommend the book to those who are inspired to work in public administration within the U.S. context to read this book intensively. It is an excellent work, which deserves congratulations, and I believe it can be used as a leadership tutorial handbook to someone who wants to be an effective public administrator he/she must read this book. I would call it a must read book.

           

Reference:

Finer H. (1940). Administrative responsibility in democratic government. Public Administration Review, 1 (4) 35 –50

Friedrich C. J. (1940) Public Policy and Nature of Administrative Responsibility in Public Policy: A yearbook of the graduate school of public administration. Harvard University Press.

Goodnow F. J. (1990) Politics and Administration:

A study in Government. New York Russell and Russell.

Wilson W. (1887). The study of administration. Political Sciences Quarterly 2 (2) 1997- 222.

Ostrom V. (1973). The intellectual crisis in public administration. University of Alabama Press

Stillman R. (1982). The changing patterns of public administration theory in America

Waldo D (1948). The administrative state: A study of the political theory American public administration. New York. The Ronald Press