L.D.

White
Leonard Dupee White and and public
public administration administration

Jeffrey A. Weber
Pennsylvania State University – Harrisburg, Middletown, Pennsylvania, 41
USA

Introduction
Tucked away in the opening chapters of most introductory textbooks to the
profession of public administration, one can find Leonard Dupee White. The
chapter normally is about the history of public administration and usually a single
sentence will state, “The first textbook for public administration was written in
1926 by L.D. White”. Indeed, it is rare to find little more mentioned about him. We
live in an age where the latest is the best, because of a desire to stay on the cutting
edge. There seems to be an implied belief that if the individual is no longer alive
his thoughts and theories are outdated. Thus, White is referred to only in an
obligatory manner.
Some academics and practitioners in the field of public administration claim
that the profession is in a crisis. There are many reasons given for the crisis, but
one of them, perhaps, is that the field views its intellectual history in such a
simplistic manner that it is deemed irrelevant to the present or future. Public
administration is crowded with people who are consumed with producing the
latest theory or research. There is nothing wrong with that but, in the process of
seeking to advance the field, they ignore the value of the history they are trying to
make. In the midst of the mêlée between competing views in the field, it is difficult
to hear the voices of those who rounded US public administration. Their voices are
quiet and subtle, but they speak from a perspective rarely found today. They
speak with the voice of a selfless servant, desirous to serve a public and, in the
process, improve society.
L.D. White is one of the sowers and cultivators of the intellectual seeds of US
public administration. “For four decades he tended the garden with unexcelled
devotion”[1]. The character, work and writings of Leonard Dupee White have a
“spreading and quiet power”[2, p. 231]. He taught, researched, studied and
discovered theoretical concepts and practical methods which are still useful today.
In his writings, he established a generic theory of public administration that was
based on research conducted from the inner city to the national government to the
governments and systems in other countries. Indeed, before it became a catchy
phrase L.D. White thought “globally and acted locally”. He was a theorist in the
broadest of senses and a detail person in the minutest of details. With this type of
broad and focused perspective it is a shame to shuffle his voluminous works and
research off into a couple of sentences in an introductory textbook. Journal of Management History
The purpose of this article is to contribute to the field of public administration Vol. 2 No. 2, 1996, pp. 41-64
© MCB University Press,
by providing, for the first time, an historical study of the intellectual thought of 1355-252X
JMH L.D. White[3]. One article cannot cover a detailed analysis, but it can provide a
2,2 survey which could provide a basis for later, more detailed works. This article
examines the major themes found in White’s writings by chronologically
progressing through his works and the major activities of his life. To this end, each
section is entitled by one of his works or activities. It is hoped that this historical
study may bring to the forefront a portion of public administration’s neglected
42 intellectual heritage and make it useful for the present and future.

Early works
Leonard D. White was born to John and Bertha on 17 January 1891, in the town of
Acton, Massachusetts. He attended Dartmouth College where he earned a
Bachelor of Science degree in 1914 and then one year later earned a Master of Arts
degree. While at Dartmouth he was greatly influenced by Professor James
Fairbanks Colby in the Political Science Department. White would later recall that
Colby gave him an appreciation of viewing problems from multiple perspectives
and taught him the importance of “clarity of thought and precision of
statement”[4, p. v].
From 1915 to 1918 he served as an instructor of government at Clark University.
While at Clark University he married Una Luccille Holden. The two of them
returned to Dartmouth in 1918, where he served as an instructor and then
assistant professor of political science. In 1920 he met Charles Merriam, who was
a Dean at the University of Chicago. As White would later recall, Merriam “was
wholly disinterested in the details of administration”, but he recognized that the
University’s Political Science Department was lacking in the area of public
administration[5]. Merriam sparked White’s interest in public administration and
appointed him as an associate professor of political science at the University of
Chicago[5, p. vi]. The first order of business for White was to earn his doctorate
and to become actively engaged in public administration in order to learn about it.
Soon after moving to Chicago, White was appointed chairman of the Citizen’s
Police Commission in Chicago, where he served until 1930[6, p. 22:I]. This was the
first public service position held by White and it shows how he truly believed that
those studying administration ought to be engaged in it. In December 1921 he
completed his doctorate with the successful defence of his dissertation, “The
origin of utility commissions in Massachusetts”. He argued that utility
commissions represented a unique form of administration in government and that
they provide a means of separating administration from politics and, in so doing,
were economically efficient[7]. These two early events which began White’s
adventure into the discipline of public administration establish two of his
intellectual underpinnings: first, that in public administration the scholar should
be a practitioner; and second, that the purpose of administration was the efficient
and economical use of resources.
The next year, during a meeting of the American Political Science Association,
he held an informal dinner party for anyone interested in the area of public
administration[2]. This meeting was the first in the American Political Science
Association and it was attended by only a few, but the exchange of ideas and the
initial bringing together of men with a common interest served to help inspire L.D. White
some to continue their pursuits[8]. The idea of mutual exchange with colleagues and public
and a sense of dedication to the university, the academic community, and the field administration
of public administration would serve as a distinguishing characteristic of White.
John Gaus, who was present at the meeting, would later recall that “he had an
inner certitude of the importance of his university, his country, his world, of his
task, and of the sympathy and friendship of colleagues whom he respected”[8]. 43
During 1922, White was asked by the States Relation Division of the National
Research Council to conduct research into the state of Illinois’ executive
reorganization plan and its effect on scientific research by scientists in the state
government. Based on this research White published his first work in 1923
entitled, “The status of scientific research in Illinois”. In 1924 he published his
second work, “Evaluation of financial control of research in state governments”[9].
These two documents lay out some of the initial ideas and thoughts White had
towards public administration. In these works he analysed the personnel problems
created among the state’s scientists by the Illinois executive reorganization plan,
which was formulated by the state’s Efficiency and Economy Committee. State
scientists were concerned that their work would be ill-served by the intrusion of
administrators who would head new governmental departments that would
oversee their research[2]. White found that administrators, who were product
oriented, were in constant conflict with the process oriented scientists. He
concluded that part of the conflict was generated by Illinois not having any
standard qualifications for the “heads of the departments” or “the subordinate
officers”[10, p. 186]. White recognized that the heads of departments held the
purse strings to advance scientific research and thus could exert a great deal of
influence over research efforts:
The lodgement of such authority imposes a solemn obligation on financial officials to use their
power with vision and understanding. A short-sighted and ill-spirited use of even moderate
authority may create an intolerable situation; and if experience demonstrates that the state
cannot secure men of vision and sympathy as well as men of firmness and sound judgment to
sit in these key positions, a complete reconsideration of the system of control will be
necessary[10, p. 203].

Here we see the beginning of a theme which will be found throughout his writings.
Public administrators wield power and authority. Because of the power and
authority they wield, they must be people of the highest calibre and integrity.
They must be competent in all senses of the word. This means they must not only
be competent in the execution of their duties, but also competent in their moral
and ethical judgements.

The Introduction to the Study of Public Administration

During the next two years, White laboured to produce Introduction to the Study of
Public Administration[10], which, he believed, would serve as a textbook for the
field. He believed that specialty areas in administration, such as public health,
highway engineering, tax collection, and education each had “many admirable
volumes”[10, p. viii]. Therefore, the purpose of his textbook was to cover “certain
JMH underlying problems” common to all “branches of administration” regardless of
2,2 level of government. White saw three main underlying problems. They were
organization, personnel control, and finance. He did not perceive the book to serve
as a bold original theory, but instead saw its purpose as providing “a system of
ordered relationships” that would “present problems” and lead to “fruitful
advances”[10, p. viii]. He worried that he may appear dogmatic at times, but
44 assured his readers that “all questions are left open”.
In August 1926 the textbook was published. William E. Mosher, Dean of the
Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, was in his office with two
students when a package arrived for him. The students later recalled, that Dean
Mosher unwrapped the package and found Leonard D. White’s Introduction to the
Study of Public Administration[10]. Mosher picked up the book and looked over
the table of contents and surveyed a few chapters, he then looked up at the two
students and said, “He beat me to it”[11]. The book clearly shows the unique
writing style of L.D. White. It is as if White is viewing the entire field of public
administration covered by the broad theoretical trends of the progressives,
scientific management, and civil service reformers. He views these trends in an
historical context spanning international, national, state, and local governments.
All of this is interwoven throughout the major areas of the book. He brings this
together into an easily read format which succinctly provides a wealth of
information. His writing style serves as a reflection of his views and thoughts
which he would continually study and build on throughout his life.
White believes that there was an “essential unity in the processes of
administration”[10, p. 1]. He saw that the “fundamental problems” of the state
were the same on all levels of the government, national, state, and local. The
fundamental problems he defined as: the development of personal initiative,
assurance of individual competence and integrity, responsibility, co-ordination,
fiscal supervision, leadership, and morale[10, p. 1].
He defined public administration as “the management of men and materials in
the accomplishment of the purposes of the state”. The objective of administration
is the “efficient utilization of the resources at the disposal of officials and
employees”. Other objectives are: the protection of individual rights, the
development of civic capacity and sense of civic responsibility, the due recognition
of the manifold phases of public opinion, the maintenance of order, and the
provision of a national minimum of welfare[10, p. 4]. Furthermore, good
administration is defined as the “elimination of waste, the conservation of material
and energy, and the most rapid and complete achievement of public purposes
consistent with economy and the welfare of the workers”[10, p. 2].
He is most concerned with how the individual administrator uses his power
or authority for the overall advancement of society and individual citizens in
that society. He contends that there should be known standards for successful
performance, but also an understanding of the ambiguity and enormity of
the goals[10, pp. 56-61; 206-8]. Furthermore, he acknowledged the need to separate
politics from administration, but he recognized that the public administrator lives
in a political environment and is influenced by many political factors[10, p. 49].
From this perspective, White sees common threads tying together all public L.D. White
administration. and public
Another dominant theme which he used throughout the remainder of his administration
life was the concept of administrative centralization and integration. White
contended that the two major problems facing public administration are
those of centralization and integration. He defines centralization as the locus
of administrative tasks that involve more than one level of government. Integration 45
is defined as the organization and function of public administration in a single level
of government.

The social science research group

The City Manager
In April 1926, White began a five-month survey of city managers and in late 1927
published his findings in his book entitled The City Manager[12]. His research was
funded by the Local Community Research Committee, of the University of Chicago.
The Local Community Research Committee was a group of seven professors from
different departments at the University of Chicago, who sought to produce a series
of social science studies. The committee consisted of: L.C. Marshall, Department of
Economics; Ellsworth Faris, Department of Anthropology; C.E. Marriam,
Department of Political Science; M.W. Jernegan, Department of History; J.H. Tufts,
Department of Philosophy; Edith Abbott, The Graduate School of Social Science
Service Administration; and L.D. White, Department of Political Science, who
served as executive secretary of the committee[12].
The purpose of the city manager study was to analyse one of the “root problems
of public administration”, how to achieve the “conditions of efficient and
responsible administration”[12, p. xii]. It sought to examine this from the
perspective of the city manager, which was a relatively new position within city
government. White’s survey consisted of visits to 23 major metropolitan cities. He
interviewed the city managers and surveyed the city employees and residents.
After the field work, another six months was devoted to the analysis of the data and
information collected. The primary purpose of the study was to
describe and analyse, “the office of the city manager and of relating how the
incumbents of the office behave in the different circumstances in which they find
themselves”[12, p. 287].
The City Manager begins by highlighting the careers of four city managers. This
biographical approach shows White’s emphasis of the individual and early uses of
case studies. White saw the public administrator not just as an employee of the
government, but as a person who bears an awesome responsibility. He conveys this
point within these biographical sketches. Through these sketches the reader comes
to see the person behind the city manager, his/her background, his/her motivations,
the problems he/she faces, and the way he/she solves them. Thus, by the time we
get to the more analytical material we have a better appreciation of its implications.
Perhaps the most interesting chapter of the book is the one on “The city
manager and the council”. In this chapter White describes how he has found two
dominant views of the role of the city manager. The one view is that the city
JMH manager is the servant of the council and is reactive to the council’s policy
2,2 decisions. The other view is that of an active manager, who serves not only the
council, but the community by “leading community thought’’[12, pp. 182-98; 13].
White concludes that the two theories are really “post-rationalization of their [the
managers] conduct”[12, p. 199]. In actuality the managers tend to operate between
these extremes and follow a “more or less opportunistic policy, varying within
46 limits with the changing character of councils and the type of problem”[12, p. 199].
On 16 December 1929, The University of Chicago dedicated the Social Science
Research Building on its campus. The building was made possible by a generous
grant from the Rockefeller Memorial Fund. This building brought together several
academic departments: philosophy, sociology, anthropology, history, economics,
and political science and the school of social service administration. Other
departments were also involved in the research, but not on a continual basis: the
law school, the divinity school, and the departments of geography, psychology,
hygiene and bacteriology, home economics, and the medical school. Each of these
schools or departments also brought in professional and academic associations.
The primary mission of this interdisciplinary group was to engage actively in
research in the field of social administration[14, pp. 21-22].
Each of the departments had faculty members who served on interdisciplinary
research committees. One of the committees established was the Local Research
Committee, whose original purpose was to focus research efforts on the
administration of the city of Chicago. More grants by the Rockefeller Memorial
Fund enabled the committee to broaden its objectives to include all levels of public
administration, national, state, and local[15, p. viii]. White formally served on the
subcommittee dealing with public finances, but he was also actively involved in
several other committees. He was most interested in the work being conducted by
the Graduate School of Social Sciences and eventually was placed on its research
group.

The New Social Sciences and Chicago: An Experiment in Social Science Research
The day the Social Science Research Building was dedicated, two books edited by
White were completed and published within six months. The first was The New
Social Science[16]; and the second, jointly edited with T.V. Smith, was Chicago: An
Experiment in Social Science Research[15]. Both of these works were published
under the auspices of the Social Science Research Building. White was an advocate
of social science as one of the methods for exploring social problems and learning
what administrative systems would best handle the problems. We find that White
will be associated with the Social Science Research Building most of his life. His
involvement shows an important aspect of his life as a scholar. White believed in
a multidisciplinary approach[15, p. 23]. Indeed, from his first days at the Social
Science Research Building until his death, White’s research and writings were a
multidisciplined effort. We find in his works a mixture of contributors from the
fields of political science, sociology, philosophy, history, anthropology and
theology. It appears that White did not have a siege mentality where he felt that
his discipline was under attack by others; instead he believed in a co-operative and L.D. White
collaborative approach[17]. and public
administration
The Prestige Value of Public Employment
In 1929 White published The Prestige Value of Public Employment[4]. This work
was a continuation of initial research done in 1925[18]. White measured and
analysed from 1927 to 1928 the relationship between the public’s attitudinal beliefs 47
of public employees and the morale of the public employees. White was one of the
first in the field to recognize that the public’s attitude towards civil service affects
the performance of the civil servants. He believed that, “an individual’s conception
of the value of his work is profoundly affected by what others think of it”[4, p. 1].
The research was ambitious; White sought to discover what caused the public’s
perception of civil service and what affect that had on the attitudes of civil
servants. His research consisted of surveying 4,680 people in the city of Chicago.
The survey consisted of rating 20 occupations that were common to both public
and private sectors. He sought to discover if the public found the public or private
occupation more efficient, honest, or courteous[4, p. 42]. His questions provided a
scale of answers and he even took into account language barriers that may result
from education, race or ethnic origins[4, ch. 5;7]. His results showed that,
surprisingly, the older, educated, wealthy white male had the lowest opinion of
public service. He also found that opinions were formulated more by incidental
occurrences than by actual service delivery or the media[4, ch. 12]. Overall, he
found that the majority opinion is against public service. His conclusions are
interesting. He does not blame the citizens for a lack of understanding of the
service which the civil servants provide, nor does he fault the civil servants for a
lack of productivity. Instead he states, “the neglect of public affairs by the ablest
minds of the community and the economically independent has abandoned the
management of the municipal service to the politicians”[4, p. 153].
The above statement shows the high regard L.D. White held for the position of
public administrator. He separated a public administrator from those who
performed the routinized tasks of administration. He believed that the public
administrator was one who “directs, coordinates, and controls the activity of
others’’[19]. In other words, White combined administration and management and
made them the concern of the public administrator. By doing this he defines the
bounds of the profession of public administration and through the research in The
Prestige Value of Public Employment he shows the profession’s importance.

The Civil Service in the Modern State

Through the Social Science Research Group, White made contact with professors
and practitioners of public administration from other countries. In the mid-1920s
he joined the International Congress of the Administrative Sciences. In 1927 he
attended the third conference of the congress, which was held in Paris. At that
conference, the secretary general of the congress, M. Edmound Lesoir, asked
White if he would edit a book, which would include expanded versions of the
JMH monographs presented at the conference. White agreed, and in July 1930 The Civil
2,2 Service in the Modern State[20] was published.
Each chapter of the book deals with the civil service as found in a particular
nation. The nations covered are: Great Britain, Canada, USA, France, Belgium,
Italy, Romania, Switzerland, Germany, Austria, Sweden, Norway, Japan, Australia
and New South Wales. Each chapter begins with a survey of the nation’s civil
48 service history to include its present state, followed by a bibliographical listing of
sources; and then a collection of administrative legislation recently adopted in the
nation. White wrote the introduction and the chapters on the UK and the USA.
The introduction contains an eloquently written survey of the history of civil
service worldwide. The fact that White was able to write such a survey, in the span
of 18 pages, shows the precision and clarity of his thought. From this we find that
White saw a unity in all administrative processes. All nations, he believed, were
seeking to make a “bureaucracy responsive to a constantly enlarging public
without chaining it as slave to the chariot of politicians”[20, p. xi]. He believed that
civil service “takes its form and structure from the changing ideals of the national
state as well as from the advances in technical knowledge”[20, p. xi]. White shows
that while other nations had more sophisticated administrative systems than the
USA, they were not separate civil services who viewed themselves as a distinct
profession. Administrative position was not based on merit, but social, economic,
and political positioning. His point is verified by the writings of the other scholars
in the book, all of whom are natives of the country of which they are writing. From
them we find that civil service developed uniformly, worldwide, in the late
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Worldwide, civil servants organized for
the first time into professional associations. Simultaneously, all nations show that
politicians and groups of citizens were concerned by the grouping of the civil
servants. Thus, we see the rise of civil service reform movements in order to codify
the boundaries and functioning of civil service[20, p. xiv-xvi]. It appears that
White’s belief in common administrative principles was fuelled by his experience
and study of other nations’ administrative systems. There also appears to be
evidence to indicate that his belief was well founded.

Further Contributions to the Prestige Value of Public Employment

White’s publication of The Prestige Value of Public Employment caught the
attention of the academic and practitioner community in the USA and other
nations[21, pp. 1-3]. In 1931 the United States Civil Service Commission requested
that White continue his research in the area of prestige value to determine if his
findings were unique to Chicago[21, pp. 1-3]. White conducted a one-year survey,
and in a small volume, Further Contributions to the Prestige Value of Public
Employment, published the preliminary results. This research surveyed 7,168
people in ten major metropolitan cities. The cities surveyed were: Austin, Texas;
Madison, Wisconsin; Columbus, Ohio; New York, New York; Los Angeles and San
Francisco, California; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Trenton, New Jersey; Seattle,
Washington; Salt Lake City, Utah; and Minneapolis, Minnesota.
 Overall, White found that the prestige value for public servants was low, but L.D. White
that federal officials commanded a greater respect than state or local officials. and public
Through this work, White invents the “prestige index” which he sees as having a administration
“wide range of implications”[21, p. 77]. Prestige is “the attribute of social
appreciation which may attach to a person, a group, or an institution, which may
vary not only from high to low, but also from positive to negative poles”[21, p. 78].
He states that his research has failed to address adequately all the implications of 49
prestige. The reason for this failure is that:
Obviously prestige is a dynamic element of life, varying from group to group with respect to
individuals, groups, or institutions; varying also from time to time, subject to modification in
ways not yet clearly understood and posed of power, sometimes in controlling degree.
Obviously, too, prestige is an element sometimes specific and conscious, at other times
vague, and beyond the ordinary area of conscious reflection. Thus the prestige of the
presidency is relatively definite and operative, while the prestige of the controller of the
currency would presumably be uncertain and ineffective except in very limited circles. In even
more remote realms the prestige of humbler officials would be even more an attribute seldom
venturing across the threshold into consciousness[21, p. 78].

White points out that “intangible though it is, prestige is a commodity of value
in the art of management”[21, p. 87]. Management is defined by White as “the
manipulation of external conditions and of individual and group attitudes for
the purpose of securing and maintaining a social-psychological situation
favourable to the accomplishment of the end sought by the organization”[21,
p. 87]. This is an important definition, because we see the blending of the art of
administration and the science of social research. The manager (public
administrator) has the awesome responsibility of maintaining a favourable
“social-psychological situation”. Part of undertaking this resides in the prestige
value the public has of civil servants. By understanding the prestige value of
their area, administrators can use techniques in the art of management to
improve an organization’s efficiency. Thus, the blending of the art and science of
administration. Science provides indicators and the actual “manipulation” of
management is an “art”. Another part of prestige resides with elected officials to
recruit, train, and place properly individuals who are capable of accomplishing
the aforementioned[21, p. 79].

The US Civil Service Commission

President’s Research Committee on Social Trends
President Herbert Hoover, in December 1929, formed a committee to “survey the
social changes in this country in order to throw light on the emerging problems
which now confront the people of the United States”[22, p. v]. The work of
Leonard White caught the attention of several on the committee and he was
appointed to the committee by President Hoover in 1930. For the next two years
White conducted research, funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, on the present
state of public administration in the USA and what trends can be seen in its
development. The bulk of the study concentrates on changes which occurred in
public administration in the previous two years[22, p. 4].
JMH The primary theme throughout the study is that “any system of public
2,2 administration inevitably reflects its environment”[22, p. 3]. White contends that
unlike other nations, the USA is not undergoing any radical change. The basic
form of government and administrative system is still the same as it was at the
start. What has occurred is that public administration’s environment has changed
and is adapting to the new environment through the adoption of new methods and
50 procedures[22, p. 11]. He contends that the changes which have occurred were
focused on improving management and efficiency. These changes “rest heavily on
modern science and invention”[22, pp. 6; 23]. The primary trends he sees in public
administration are:
(1) A shift in the balance of power from the states to the federal government.
(2) An increase in “home rule” which is counter to the shift in power, but is
limited and restricted.
(3) An increase in the size and number of services provided by federal
departments.
(4) A growing dilemma of whether our chief executives, on all levels of
government, are political or administrative. He sees that this will lead to an
increased use of city managers and the use of managers by governors and
the President.
(5) The new area of personnel management will continue to develop due to a
continuing increase in the number of civil servants.
(6) An “enlarged contribution of professional, technical and scientific
employees to public administration”.
(7) An increase in the professionalization of public administration as it seeks
to manage all these changes[22, p. 7].
Even though all these changes are occurring very rapidly, he warns the reader that
“old habits persist in different forms, and inefficiency is not always cured by the
enactment of a statute”[22, p. 7].

Whitley Councils in the British Civil Service

On the completion of his work on the President’s Research Committee, White was
able, under a fellowship from the Social Science Research Committee, to travel to
London to conduct research on the Whitley Councils. The Whitley Councils were
an application of the council idea to the British civil service, in order to “ameliorate
the clash of contending interests” between industry and the civil service[22, p. xi].
White published his research in 1933 in Whitley Councils in the British Civil
Service[24].
The book is primarily an historical account of how the councils were formed
and how they functioned. The underlying theme is that public administration is
tied directly to its environment. White recounts the social changes that occurred in
the UK following World War I. He argues that societal demands required an
increase of services by the Government and civil service reforms. In order to
administer all this efficiently, the British Government adopted councils which
worked in conjunction with the staff officers and workers in the civil service. L.D. White
These councils represented a form of negotiation, collaboration, arbitration, and and public
co-ordination effort between the government and the civil servants. White was administration
fascinated by the Whitley system. He contended that it produced “a vast network
of agreements” which “dictate the conditions of service of some 300,000 officers
and employees”[24, p. 334]. He saw the advantages in the negotiation and
arbitration methods of the councils. In his later writings on public personnel 51
management we find him talking about arbitration and negotiation as a means of
resolving differences over salary, benefits, and working conditions. His belief in
public employee unions and the use of negotiation and arbitration became such a
dominant thought that he included a section about it in his second edition of
Introduction to the Study of Public Administration, which was published in
1939[10].

The Commissioner
On returning from England, White was asked by Secretary of the Interior, Harold
L. Ickes, to succeed Thomas E. Campbell as the republican member on the Civil
Service Commission[6, p. 22:I]. Leonard White accepted the position and was
sworn in on 5 February 1935. It is as a commissioner that we see two of L.D.
White’s personal traits: loyalty and dedication. White displayed an unusual
amount of loyalty and dedication to whatever task he had. As a commissioner, and
afterwards, we find him defending the actions of the Roosevelt administration.
When Franklin Roosevelt came to office on 4 March 1934, the civil service
commission had a small budget and staff[25, p. 317]. Roosevelt, during his first
year in office, did nothing to remedy it, and in fact angered many civil service
reformers by moving positions from the merit system to the patronage system[25,
p. 318]. President Roosevelt addressed the National Civil Service Reform League
and informed them that “the merit system in civil service is in no danger at my
hands; but on the contrary I hope that it will be extended and improved during my
term as President”[25, p. 319]. The League was not impressed and continued to
speak out and lobby against the President’s lack of support of the merit system.
Against this tide, L.D. White spoke favourably of the President. He stated in
speeches, and years later in an article, that Franklin Roosevelt’s public statements
upheld the merit system and that F.D. Roosevelt was very anxious to expand it and
create a professional administrative state[25, p. 319].
White was very active in his emphasis and support for a highly trained and
professional civil service system. He argued against the patronage system and at
times seemed to be in direct conflict with the administration. White contended that
Roosevelt actually supported and encouraged him. In multiple speeches found in
the Washington Times, Washington Post, and the New York Times, White had one
consistent theme during 1934 and the first half of 1935. He emphasized:
A permanent, carefully trained staff of career administrators in government, ready at all times to
cope with any exigency. Government must be raised to new levels of strength and intelligence if
it is to perform the tasks which fate has laid upon it. Political appointment to the technical
administrative service can no longer be trusted to produce the necessary results[26].
JMH Perhaps the high tide of his push for a professional administrative staff came in
2,2 1935 when he published a collection of his lectures and speeches in a thin volume
entitled Government Career Service[27].

Government Career Service

White begins this Government Career Service[27] with a stinging rebuke of our
52 nation’s administrative system. He states:
Our administrative system has produced many able administrators; too commonly they have
been fortunate accidents. The system as such is not constructed to develop administrative
ability or to capitalize the measure of ability it attracts.
Thoughtful citizens are consequently anxious lest a civil service which has been weakened
by a historical tradition of patronage and by the almost complete absence of planning in its
growth and structure prove unequal to the tasks which must be performed[27, p. ix].
He goes on to state that “the most important and immediate task” before the
national government is the “laying of foundations for an administrative corps in
harmony with the prevailing structure of American life and government”[27, p. x].
White shows President Roosevelt’s support for his position by quoting a speech
the President made at the American University.
Building on the present Civil Service as a foundation, I believe that it will be possible for this
country to work out a system of public service that will be at least as honest and efficient as
the British civil service, and that it will have more initiative and adaptability[27, pp. x-xi].
As is customary with White, the first chapter provides a historical overview of
civil service in the USA. White then becomes a policy advocate and outlines the
policy that the US government should follow in order to create a permanent and
professional civil service. His vision for the organization of an “administrative”
corps was:
It might properly start with the permanent under-secretary, although at the present moment we
scarcely have such an office. Directly beneath the under-secretary is a group of positions which
now exist in most of the federal departments and establishments, the so-called executive
assistants, men who advise the secretaries of departments and the heads of independent
establishments, who share in the burden of general administration, and who assist in the
supervision and direction of the main subdivisions of the agency…Immediately beneath the
executive assistants in the third tier of administrative responsibility are two groups of officers,
those in charge respectively of line bureaus, and those in charge of the staff officers[27, p. 31].
He continues to describe the organization all the way down to the “custodial and
messenger staffs”. Next he discusses how the transition to the administrative
corps could take place. He calls for a phasing in of the corps; that would start at
the top. First he envisions a civil service examination and a screening process to
find the most capable “men and women” to serve as the under-secretaries. Next he
argues for a large-scale recruiting effort to find competent people of all ages to fill
the other positions and to create a group who are in training for other positions. He
remarks that his administrative corps would be similar to the military with
schools established just for administration and a hierarchic rank structure, with a
similar system of promotion[27, pp. 33; 41-5].
The idea of recruiting able-bodied, intelligent men and women into an
administrative corps would dominate most of White’s speeches and writings for
the rest of his life. It is important to remember that White derived these ideas from L.D. White
a global and historical perspective. The administrative corps and the and public
professionalism and integrity of those who served government was a deeply held administration
conviction, based on a wealth of knowledge and experience. He was advocating
what he believed would truly help our nation[28].

Civil Service abroad: Great Britain, Canada, Germany, and France 53

Simultaneously with White’s appointment to the Civil Service Commission,
Roosevelt approved the Commission of Inquiry on Public Service. The
Commission was conceived by the Social Science Research Council of the
University of Chicago and approved by President-elect Roosevelt in December
1933. The purpose of the Commission was to “inquire into and report early in 1935
upon the broad problem of personnel in the administrative, executive, and
technical services of national, state, and local government”. The Commission was
headed by L.D. Coffman, the president of the University of Minnesota, and had as
its members: Louis Brownlow, director of the Public Administration Clearing
House; Arthur L. Day, vice-president, Corning Glass Works; and Charles E.
Merriam, chairman of the Department of Political Science, University of Chicago.
The Commission decided to gather monographs and suggestions for reform. One
of the books they published in 1935 contained a monograph by L.D. White on the
British civil service[24]. The importance of this monograph is that it shows many
of the ideas White advocated for American civil service in actual practice in the
UK. White characteristically begins with a historic overview which shows the step
by step development of the professional British civil service. He then addresses the
areas of loyalty and ethics in public service. The monograph serves as an example
of White’s thoughts in action and it also shows the influence the British civil
service had on White.

The Frontiers of Public Administration

While on the Civil Service Commission, White met with two of his former
colleagues from the University of Chicago, John M. Gaus and Marshall E. Dimock.
The three of them decided to put together a book which would detail the frontiers
of public administration. In 1936 The Frontiers of Public Administration[29 was
published. The purpose of the book was to express their “appraisal of certain
phrases and concepts widely employed in the study of public administration”[29,
p. vii]. White et al. contended that academics and practitioners in public
administration were confused by all the various “currents of experience”, from so
many varied sources and areas. They sought to clarify the definitions of common
concepts and phrases being used in public administration. It is important to note
that they did not view this as the formation of some doctrine for public
administration, but as an effort to “stimulate other and more valuable
contributions” from their colleagues[29, p. viii].
White had only one contribution to the book and that was an essay entitled,
“The meaning of principles in public administration”. White argued that his
previous research showed him that US administrators are pragmatic and action
JMH oriented and have little regard for the concept of principles. He concurs with
2,2 Professor Luther Gulick that:
During the past years there has been a great deal of discussion of principles in the field of
public administration. Every newspaper editor, every college professor, every politician, every
reformer, every civic secretary, has on occasion, when he is pushed with his back to the wall to
defend a program, resorted to “fundamental principles” just as in past years the politician has
wrapped himself in the flag[30].
54
White contended that the word “principle” is often misused by academics and
practitioners in the field of public administration. White, therefore, sets out to
define the word “principle”. A “principle in the sense of a guide to action may
mean little or much. Everyone has some guide to action, more or less explicit”[29,
p. 18]. Most guides to actions are not principles, White argued. A principle is a
“fundamental truth or proposition”[29, p. 18]. He contended that if “a principle
was thought of as a hypothesis and verification, then the frequency of its
reference will be greatly reduced”[29, p. 19]. In order for a principle to be used as
a guide for action it must be tested and verified. It is through the verification of a
principle that it can become a conviction held by an individual[29, p. 21]. White
goes on to cite different political philosophers who developed principles to guide
action. He then shows that the search for principles in public administration is
going on in all major nations. “Broad vistas open into a world which at first may
seem to be not only indifferent but hostile”[29, p. 24].
He notes that the search for principles may seem the furthermost thought of
nations locked in conflict; but “it is equally true that every state imperatively
requires an organized public administration, and however revolutionary in
origin or radical in purpose, needs as strong and intelligent an administration as
can be devised”[29, p. 25]. He concludes:
True, administrators cannot always await the search for principles before deciding upon action;
true, also, that even where experience or experiment make clear the principle, administration
may close its eyes to discovered truth; but in the long run practical recognition of principles is not
easily avoided. New agencies and techniques for the discovery and dissemination of principles in
public administration may well mark the twentieth century as the first in which the phase of
government emerged from twilight into the consciousness of society[29, p. 25].
Through this essay, White challenges all who are involved in public
administration; the academic and the practitioner. He challenges them to be more
disciplined and to clarify their terms in order to advance the knowledge and
practice in the field on a solid foundation.
White argued for years that one of the principles for efficient public
administration was a trained, professional, technically competent administrative
corps. The administrative corps, White believed, would have to be based on the
merit system for attainment of positions. The merit system was in conflict with
the patronage system, which was popular among elected officials.

Politics and Public Service

White left office as a commissioner the same year that many of his ideas for the
civil service were brought into fruition in legislative form. On 1 March 1937,
legislation which included some of the recommendations from the Brownlow
Report was introduced into the House of Representatives. The legislation called L.D. White
for the moving of 300,000 patronage positions into a professional civil service and public
based on merit[31, p. 21]. This particular piece of legislation failed to pass, but in
1938 President Roosevelt signed an executive order causing 100,000 patronage
administration
positions to be moved to the civil service and to come under the merit system[31,
p. 54].
Motivated by his experience as a commissioner, White co-authored, with a long- 55
time colleague and personal friend, T.V. Smith, the book Politics and Public
Service[31]. T.V. Smith had been a professor of philosophy at the University of
Chicago, but became a politician and served a number of years as a Congressman.
The two combined their experiences to address the debate between the merit
system and the patronage system.
The book begins with an interesting dialogue between Smith and White about
a fishing trip, which turns to remembrances of their past friendship, and then to
politics, and finally to a discussion of the merit system and the patronage system.
The book is lightly written and is intended for common reading.
Smith argues that the patronage system is useful in that it serves to “buttress
the executive leadership” with those who hold common views. The patronage
system also helps the political parties pay off debts accrued during campaigns. He
concludes with the argument that the separation of administration from politics
would make the bureaucracy a “menace to democratic institutions”[31, pp. 85-95].
White holds true to most of the same themes he had emphasized during his
years as a commissioner:
The case for public service, then, rests on the necessity for competent, impartial, and honest
administration of the vast programs for the public good which have been approved by
representative bodies. These programs require continuity in administration, ability and
competence of a high order, technical skill, and impartiality as between conflicting social
groups. The best guarantee of success is a civil service, free from partisanship but subject to
public control; effective political leadership; and a party system, itself free from the degrading
effects of spoils[31, p. 129].
The book concludes in the same manner that it began in a conversation between
Smith and White as they are fishing. The two reach a point of consensus that their
nation would best be served by a mixture of both the patronage and merit
systems:
Certainly our whole argument conspires to enforce that modest moral, and further – the
harmonious association of men with different skills is the means of a humane ordering of our
troubled civilization. And one step still further – the more perfect the union of the skills of the
civil servant with those of the politician is the essential means of holding fast to our cherished
democratic way of life[31, p. 347].
This book captures in a simple and readable style the essence of the arguments for
and against the merit system that were prevalent during this era. A quick survey
of the New York Times during the late 1930s shows the same arguments being
made. The book also shows that White possessed a clear understanding of the
political context of public administration. He knew from his historical and
international research that a complete separation of the two was neither possible
nor desirable. Instead, the nation required a mixture of both the merit and the
JMH patronage systems. White believed that in order for the merit system to function
2,2 properly it required the continued professionalization of the field of public
administration.

Public Administration Review

In December 1939, White helped to organize the American Society for Public
56 Administration (ASPA). The ASPA was founded as a professional association for
those who practised and studied public administration. The overall purpose of the
association was to form closer links between the academics and practitioners[32].
At the first meeting of the ASPA there was a consensus that there was a need for a
professional journal to be used to exchange ideas. The association started the
journal Public Administration Review (PAR) and elected White as editor-in-chief.
White made very few comments as to his vision of PAR. Based on comments made
during conferences and the type of articles found in PAR during his years as editor-
in-chief, it appears that he viewed PAR as a practitioners’ journal influenced by
academics. The report from the second annual conference of the ASPA showed
White asking for an increase in articles from practitioners[33]. All the issues in the
first volume of PAR appear arranged in a similar manner: national, state, local,
book reviews, contemporary topics, and news from the society. The majority of
articles in each issue of the second and third volumes focused on a particular topic
such as: agriculture administration in wartime, personnel administration in war,
and rationing boards. Articles focused on the practitioner and on the
administrative experience being gained from the war[34]. PAR seemed to have
served as a handy reference source for everyone from the small city manager to the
administrator serving in the national government. It is important to remember that
during White’s tenure as editor-in-chief of PAR the Second World War was ongoing.
PAR served the war effort by drawing in academic theories and showing their
practical usage to professional administrators who were engaged in the crisis.
While White was editor of PAR, his lifelong mentor and colleague Charles
Merriam died. White, and several others who knew Merriam well, decided to
compile a book of essays about the future directions of the national government.
The book’s future orientation is in honour of Charles Merriam’s forward thinking
which all the contributors agreed inspired them.

The Future Government of the United States

In 1942 The Future Government of the United States: A Series of Essays in
Honour of Charles Merriam[35] was published. Leonard White was a contributor
and editor of this collection of essays. The introduction to this collection of essays
reveals the profound impact Merriam had on White’s career and thought. White
writes that Merriam was a “scholar, practical politician, and statesman”[35, p. vi].
Merriam was able to recognize important areas in government and encourage
others to pursue those areas. Thus Merriam, who was not interested in public
administration, inspired in White the desire to pursue it as a lifelong study and
career[35, p. vi]. The manner in which Merriam brought together various academic
fields to focus on the problems of government, served as a source of education and
motivation for L.D. White. White attributes his belief of the interdisciplinary L.D. White
nature of public administration to Charles Merriam. and public
White’s essay within the book is entitled “The public service of the future”.
In this essay he contemplates what the “central contribution of public
administration
administration and of public service” will be from 1942 to 1960[35, pp. 192-217]. He
believes that it is hazardous to guess what the future will hold, but it is possible,
based on assumptions, to deduce a probable course. In sum, White presents his 57
personal vision of public administration. This small essay is important in
understanding White’s personal views on public administration and public
service.
White begins by offering several assumptions about the future:
(1) Responsible government in the democratic tradition will continue.
(2) The scope of governmental activity will increase because of the:
• post-war effort to ensure economic stability in the USA and abroad;
• increase in governmental ownership;
• trend towards more governmental control of the economy; and
• the fact that provision of services to the government will continue to
increase.
(3) The burden of taxation to provide for interest charges, debt reduction, and
current expenditures will continue to rise…and the real income of persons
in the middle class, including most public employees, will diminish.
(4) The national government will continue to increase in influence and
authority at the expense of the state and local governments.
(5) At the close of this war, there will emerge an important international
structure, including an international administrative system…which the
members of the American public service will become, in some measure,
responsible to[35, p. 193].
Considering that this was written within the first six months of the USA’s entry
into the Second World War, White readily believes the Anglo-American-Russian
alliance will win the war and that one of the results of the victory will be the
establishment of a world body governmental organization. White states that the
creation of a world government is “inevitable” and implicitly assumes that it will
be organized according to democratic traditions[35, p. 194]. He foresees the
establishment of a worldwide postal system, an international labour office, an
international military force and an international public works programme which
will rebuild the world devastated by war and help build infrastructure in
underdeveloped nations[35, p. 195]. The main problem facing the US public
administrator in this future is his or her “lack of linguistic ability”[35, p. 198]. The
future motto of public administrators, White believes, will not be “we serve the
state”, but that “we serve humanity”[35, p. 198].
The achievement of this world government, White contended, is quite possible
even though nations will guard their sovereignty. White argued that US history
provides the historic example of how a world government could be created. The
JMH USA’s national government was founded by states which viewed themselves as
2,2 sovereign. Over time, these states realized the benefit of co-operative relationships
and learned that the stronger the national government, the more public services it
could provide. White believes that after the devastation of the present war is
realized, the nations of the world will fully appreciate the need for an international
government.
58 Within his belief of a world government, we see the fruition of his early
argument that administration is the same regardless of the level of government or
nation it is being practised in[10, p. 1]. White appears to believe that public
administration’s position in the national government has been solidified and now
the most logical extension is to a worldwide government which will apply
universal administrative principles.
Based on his belief of the creation of a world government, White saw US public
administration shifting to the national government[35, p. 198]. The national
government would increasingly perform more of the tasks done by state and
local governments[35, p. 198]. The national government basically took the place
of the state government, in relation to the international government. State
governments would then become similar to local governments. White believed all
of this was possible because of the rising technology, the professionalization of
public administration, and the improvement of administrative systems and
methods[35, p. 199].
White argued that, based on the rise of the national government, the merit
system will be nationally adopted by 1960. He contended that by “1941 this goal
had been substantially achieved”, and that by 1950 at least “thirty-four states” and
most municipal governments will have adopted the merit system[35, p. 201].
White believes that this will be one of the most significant achievements of public
administration. Through the adoption of the merit system, a professional
administrative corps would finally be realized. The professional administrative
corps would help to eliminate partisanship and unethical behaviour in the
functioning of government. White contended that he can “predict with confidence”
the creation and rise of “professional administrators, professional public relations
experts, planning consultants, public opinion polling experts, and professional
budgeters”[35, p. 202].
It is important to note that White saw the creation of a professional
administrative state as existing within the political environment. He saw
government administration being handled by a professional administrative corps,
not by partisan politicians. Administration is thus separate from politics, but
receives its directions from the political arena. That this is possible White
continually compares the administrative corps to the professional military. The
elected and appointed politicians set the course for the military, but the military
executes it outside of partisan politics. White believed that in order to achieve
efficiency in the functioning of government, public administration needed to be
shaped in the image of a professional military, therefore, he continually speaks of
an “administrative corps”[27; 35, pp. 204-9].
 White saw that the professional administrative corps would cause an increase L.D. White
in the functioning of civil service unions and the rise of administrative law[35, and public
pp. 206-9]. The civil service unions would increase in importance, but would still administration
be held in check by the governmental system. White also contended that as the
professional administrative corps is perceived as a more effective way of executing
public policy, it would increase in authority and become more responsible for
administrative adjudication[35, p. 109]. White saw the use of administrative 59
adjudication as a possible solution for “improving the competitive position of
various classes or segments of the population”[35, p. 210].
In conclusion, White warns that the administrative corps may become an
inflexible and unresponsive bureaucracy. White quotes Merriam as stating, “the
safeguarding of the citizen from narrow-minded and dictatorial bureaucratic
interference and control is one of the primary obligations of democratic
government”[35, p. 212]. Therefore, White argued that the administrative corps is
an instrument of the state and its power is limited and restricted. This then
becomes one of the future concerns for democracy to define properly the power of
the administrative corps so that it is responsive and flexible, but not dictatorial.
In an article written one year later, White begins to lay the practical foundation
for a world government administration by addressing how the United Nations
could form administrative agencies to aid in the rebuilding of liberated
territories[35]. White’s essay about the future of public service and his article on
administrating liberated territories show clearly how he is sometimes idealistic.
White fails to appreciate the nature of national sovereignty and seems simplistic
when he compares it to the states which formed the USA. It is possible that he
realized he was being idealistic, for he never mentioned again, in any of his
writings, his vision of a “future world order”[25, p. 194]. Instead, we find White
devoted the majority of his last years of life to research in his lifelong interest of
history.

A study in administrative history

Leonard White is perhaps best known for his four-volume study of US
administrative history[36]. As already noted, history served as a backdrop for all
of his writings. White was able to place every administrative issue of his day into
historical context and thereby provide a broader perspective. Therefore, it is not
unusual that we find the last 15 years of his life dedicated to compiling the
administrative history he so ably used. His research for the four volumes was
funded by the Social Science Research Committee of the University of Chicago[37].
The majority of his information was found in unpublished governmental
documents and diaries of administrators. He also made wide use of the American
State Documents, the Annals of Congress, and the Executive Journal of the Senate.
His view of what sources one should use for historical research was best described
in a book review he wrote in 1954:
The administrative history of the United States is told in part from public documents, but it can
best be understood only by the revelations of the purpose and character that appear in private
letters of the participants[38].
JMH The purpose of his study of administrative history was expressed clearly in his
2,2 first volume:
This volume begins a systematic study of American ideas about public administration. My
principal interest has been to explore the origin and growth of the opinions that Americans now
possess about public management. These ideas can only be understood in the light of prevailing
values and the events, personalities, and institutions from which they are derived. Although I
have given some notice to the characteristics of society, the flow of events, and the quality of
60 personalities, the emphasis has been placed on the practical problems of government and the
formulation of ideas as these problems were surmounted[36, p. vii].
White’s study of administrative history is broken down into four time periods:
1789-1801, 1801-1829, 1829-1861, and 1869-1901. White chose to skip over the
Civil War period because of the wealth of information that was already available
on that period. The primary thesis found in all four volumes is:
A certain level of administrative capacity is characteristic of each generation. It is the product of
community experience and fixes the dimensions of community operations. It is affected by the
extent of technical development, the degree of personal and social discipline, the quality of
leadership, and the possession of management skills…The administrative art develops in group
activities. It is favoured by an urban and industrial community rather than by a rural society[36,
pp. 466-7].

White’s thesis succinctly captures the essence of his views from his previous
works. Neatly wrapped together in one package is the belief that administration is
the same regardless of the level of government. White finds “administrative
capacity” in every generation. That capacity is based on the technology,
leadership, social level, and management skills of the community. The community
to White could be found on any level of government. It could be the local
community, the state community, the national community, or the international
community. This is an interesting point because it contradicts some present
academics in the field who contend that the USA, in its origins was “stateless”
because it did not have a certain type of administrative state[39].
These four volumes show the fallacy of the present day “stateless” theory by
eloquently examining the administrative capacity of four different time periods.
Merely because an era’s administrative state does not match the function of some
present day administrative state does not mean that that particular era is
“stateless.” We find that the USA has had a complex administrative state in every
time period that sought to deal with the unique challenges of each generation.
White clearly shows the ever changing and developing administrative state by
recounting the administrative capacity of each period in terms of the technology,
the societal level, and the leadership and management capabilities. The rich
historical research in these books contains much of the administrative history
which some presently in the field of public administration tend to ignore.
The majority of this work is from primary source documents and was
repeatedly lauded in book reviews across several disciplines and in several
practitioner journals. The American Historical Review wrote:
Masterly in concept, painstakingly in detail, based on a thorough examination of source
materials yet written with simplicity and restraint, this account of public administration…
 must inevitably command the attention and respect of historians as well as administrators. As L.D. White
a “first”…it sets a high standard of scholarship[40].
and public
John M. Gaus wrote the review for Public Administration Review of the first administration
volume and argued that White was “the chief creator” in one of the areas that
marked advanced studies in public administration[41].
One reviewer was openly critical of White’s second volume, The Jeffersonians.
He argued that White had too narrow a view and placed too much emphasis on the 61
impact of political leaders’ concern for administration[42]. The reviewer pointed
out that White had a “too idealistic view of Hamilton” and ignored Hamilton’s
shortcomings. He also argued that White’s division of the Federalists and
Jeffersonians, as having two different views on governmental administration, was
overly simplistic[42, p. 113]. The validity of these criticisms is questionable
because: White is critical of Hamilton and discusses at length his weaknesses; the
differences between the governmental administration of the Federalists and
Jefferson had been recognized previously by other historians; and the reviewer
cites secondary sources to support his claim, whereas White’s works were based
on primary sources. Overall, White’s study of American administrative history
has been recognized as a major contribution to both the field of public
administration and the field of American history.

The themes and leading ideas

The purpose of this article was to analyse historically the thoughts and ideas of
Leonard Dupee White in the field of public administration, in order to demonstrate
the validity of these ideas today. We have seen in the works of L.D. White the
following themes continually reiterated either explicitly or implicitly:
(1) The art of administration is the same regardless of the level or nationality
of government.
(2) The purpose of administration is the most efficient utilization of
government resources, material, and energy for the achievement of public
policies as defined by the government.
(3) The true nature of public administration is found in its historical context
related to the present situation.
(4) The methods and techniques of public administration can be improved by
the use of science and technology, but the application of methods and
techniques is the art of management and leadership.
(5) Public administration, due to the diversity of areas in which it functions, is
multidisciplinary. Therefore, the proper study of public administration
should be from a multidisciplinary perspective.
(6) The efficient administration of a government can only be found in a highly
trained, professional administrative corps based on the merit system.
(7) The administrative capacity of a community is based on the community’s
technology, societal and personal norms, and the qualities of its
leadership and managers.
JMH (8) A problem for all governments is in determining the proper balance of
2,2 authority and restrictions in its administrative agencies.
Each of these themes is relevant to the field of public administration today. White
had the unique ability to synthesize all these themes together in a succinct and
readable style. White’s contribution to the field of public administration was best
summarized in 1958 by John M. Gaus, Professor of Government at Harvard
62 University:
Any account of his part in the study and practice of public administration would be
incomplete which failed to include the personal qualities that led us of his generation to turn
to him so often as a person of complete integrity and of humane and generous spirit. Many are
now more aware of the importance of administration; there are more of our able youth
challenged to find life work in the public service and with fair chances to do so; many are
seeking a more humane and objective understanding of the institutions of government
appropriate for the changing society and new tasks; and we can now more easily become
acquainted with and inspired by the riches of our administrative experience, because Leonard
White deliberately set these goals and disciplined his time and energy to achieve them. Yet he
so did this as to make those associated with him, through organizations that he himself helped
to invent and foster, feel that they were a part of the endeavor[2, p. 236].
Gaus concludes his remarks by asking how can his generation adequately
“transmit the reasons why we turned to him”[2, p. 236]. Unfortunately, the
evidence found in public administration’s textbooks, even those which are
historical, barely mentions White and thus fails to answer Gaus’s question.
This short study of White’s intellectual history is a modest and incomplete
attempt by one of a generation, twice removed from Gaus, to determine why his
generation turned to Leonard Dupee White. Perhaps a reprinting of White’s
original textbook is in order? The least that could be done is that students of the
field should read the prefaces to each of the four editions of The Introduction to the
Study of Public Administration, which John M. Gaus said should be mandatory
reading for those beginning any “serious study of the field”[2, p. 233].

Notes and references

1. Storing, H.J., “Leonard D. White and the study of public administration”, Publ ic
Administration Review, Vol. 25 No. 1, March 1955, p. 38.
2. Gaus, J.M., “Leonard Dupee White 1891-1958”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 18 No. 2,
Summer 1958.
3. There have been only two articles written about L.D. White, both appeared in Public
Administration Review. The first was written in 1958 by John M. Gaus shortly after
White’s death. Gaus’s article is an eloquent and moving tribute partly to White’s
scholarship, experience, and character. The second article was published in 1965 by
Herbert J. Storing, “Leonard D. White and the study of public administration”. This article
is a detailed examination of the theoretical assumptions used by White in the four editions
of Introduction to the Study of Public Administration.
4. White, L.D., The Prestige Value of Public Employment, The University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, IL, 1929.
5. White, L.D. (Ed.), The Future of Government in the United States: Essays in Honor of
Charles Merriam, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1942.
6. “On civil service board”, New York Times, 6 February 1934.
 7. White, L.D., “The origin of utility commissions in Massachusetts”, unpublished doctoral L.D. White
dissertation, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, 1921.
8. John Gaus attended this meeting and he recounts that the attendees had not met each other
and public
previously. He believed that it was fitting that White would be the one to bring them administration
together. He believed that White had the gift of “fostering that sense of corporate sharing
that is so essential in a new field of work”.
9. Both of these works were published in the National Research Council Bulletin, No. 49, 1925.
10. White, L.D., Introduction to the Study of Public Administration, Macmillan, New York, NY,
63
1926; 2nd ed., 1939.
11. Stone, A.B. and Stone, D.C., “Appendix: case histories of early professional education
programs”, in Mosher, F.C. (Ed.), American Public Administration: Past, Present, Future,
University of Alabama Press, Birmingham, AL, 1975, p. 278.
12. White, L.D., The City Manager, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1927.
13. Interestingly, the thought of the active manager was advocated by the city manager of
Petersburg, Louis Bronlow, who would later head the Bronlow commission during
President Roosevelt’s administration.
14. White, L.D., “The local community research committee and the social science research
building”, in Smith, T.V. and White, L. (Eds), Chicago: An Experiment in Social Science
Research, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1929, pp. 21-2.
15. Smith, T.V. and White, L.D. (Eds), Chicago: An Experiment in Social Science Research,
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1929.
16. White, L.D. (Ed.), The New Social Science, University of Chicago Press, IL, 1929.
17. This belief is deduced from the following evidence. White served on several
multidisciplinary boards: The Social Science Research Group; The President’s Research
Committee on Social Trends; and The Commission on Inquiry on Public Service Personnel.
A reading of the introductions and prefaces in his works also reveals how he collaborated
and sought multi-disciplinary views.
18. White, L.D., “Conditions of municipal employment in Chicago”, unpublished research
report. As found in Further Contributions to the Prestige Value of Public Employment,
University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, 1925, p. 1.
19. White, L.D., Introduction to the Study of Public Administration, 4th ed., Macmillan, New
York, NY, 1955, p. 2.
20. White, L.D. (Ed.), The Civil Service in the Modern State, The University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, IL, 1930.
21. White, L.D., Further Contributions to the Prestige Value of Public Employment, The
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1932.
22. White, L.D., Trends in Public Administration, President’s Research Committee on Social
Trends, Washington, DC, printed by the Maple Press Company, York, PA, 1932.
23. White cites the automobile, aeroplane, telegraph and telephone as examples of inventions
which have “enlarged the scope of business and social activity”. These inventions,
combined with the increase in population, created new problems for the various levels of
government and new opportunities for said government to provide a wider range of
services.
24. White, L.D., Whitley Councils in the British Civil Service, The University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, IL, 1933.
25. Van Riper, P.R., History of The United States Civil Service, Row, Peterson and Company,
White Plains, NY, 1958.
26. “Ely urges states to adopt NRA Laws”, New York Times, 29 September 1934, p. 4:2. This
article highlights speeches that were made in Boston to the International Association of
JMH Governmental Labor. L.D. White addressed them with a speech entitled, “The problem of
administrative personnel”.
2,2 27. White, L.D., Government Career Service, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL,
1935.
28. This conclusion is made after reading his works and the various newspaper accounts
where he is quoted. There is a unity in his beliefs which becomes increasingly refined as
time goes by.
64 29. Gaus, J.M., White, L.D. and Dimock, M.E., The Frontiers of Public Administration, Russell
and Russell, New York, NY, 1936.
30. Gulick, L., Comments made at the round table discussion on “The principles of public
administration”, at the American Political Science Association’s 1935 Annual Conference,
in Gaus, J.M., White, M.D. and Dimock, M.E., The Frontiers of Public Administration,
Russell and Russell, New York, NY, 1936, p. 15.
31. White, L.D. and Smith, T.V., Politics and Public Service, Harper and Brothers, New York,
NY, 1939.
32. Stone, D.C. and Stone, A.B., “The birth of ASPA”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 35
No. 1, January/February, 1975.
33. “News from the Society”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 1 No. 2, 1940, p. 223.
34. Examples of this can be seen in the title of various articles found in the the first three
volumes: “The administration of defence”, “Personnel administration in war time”, “The
executive branch at war”, “Rationing boards”, “Agriculture administration in war time”,
“Government and administration in war time”, “Administrating liberated areas”.
35. White, L.D., “Field co-ordination in liberated areas”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 3
No. 2 (Summer), 1943, pp. 187-93.
36. White, L.D., The Federalists: A Study in Administrative History 1789-1801, The Free
Press, New York, NY, 1948.
37. While White worked on the Administrative History he was actively involved in several
other activities and projects. He served on several executive level commissions and
committees dealing with the civil service. Also, he finished out his time as editor-in-chief of
Public Administration Review and served for two years as president of the American
Political Science Association. He wrote several articles during this period about personnel
administration. One in particular dealt with “The senior civil service” and was published
in PAR in the spring of 1955. Much of what White wrote during this period appears to be
reiterations of previous views, just applying them to new situations. Therefore, it appears
that he spent the last part of his life concentrating on the administrative history, which he
felt had been largely ignored by the field.
38. White, L.D., “The public life of TR”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, Winter
1954, p. 282.
39. Stillman, R.J., Preface to Public Administration: A Search for Themes and Direction, St
Martin’s Press, New York, NY, 1991, p. 15 and chapter 2.
40. Book review of The Federalist, American Historical Review, 1948.
41. Gaus, J.M., “American administrative history”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 8 No. 4,
1948, pp. 289-92.
42. Wiltse, C.M., “Some reflections on administrative history”, Public Administrative Review,
Vol. 12 No. 2, 1952, pp. 113-19.