You are on page 1of 8

Deja Vu: French Antecedents of American Public Administration Author(s): Daniel W. Martin Source: Public Administration Review, Vol.

47, No. 4 (Jul. - Aug., 1987), pp. 297-303 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Society for Public Administration Stable URL: Accessed: 30/09/2009 10:51
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact

Blackwell Publishing and American Society for Public Administration are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Public Administration Review.


Vu: American


French Public

Antecedents of Administration

Daniel W. Martin,Universityof Baltimore

The birth of public administration is well established in American academic folklore. Many scholars agree that public administration "was for the most part an American invention, indigenous, and sui generis."' Many accept that the "self-aware" study of the field began with Woodrow Wilson's 1887 article.2 A somewhat smaller group would argue that academic training for government service was similarly created at the Maxwell School at Syracuse University in 1924. On reflection, such boundaries stretch credibility. They suggest that in a world that has been subjected to governmental administration for millenia, most of what has been written about the subject was printed in this language, was devised in this country, and is almost exclusively from this century. If that were a correct summation of our species' curiosity, it would be unsettling. This article adds to studies by Dwight Waldo and others which show that that is not the case. More specifically, virtually every significant concept that existed in American public administration literature by 1937 (half the history of the field since Wilson's essay) had already been published in France by 1859. Most had been published by 1812. However, the early French literature has virtually disappeared, and its demise offers some clues as to the limited role that public administration can play in assuring its own survival. Its rediscovery also provides some interesting data on the structural nature of bureaucracy. The first part of this article presents a brief introduction to nineteenth-century French public administration literature. To aid in the comparison, that literature is described using many of the same concepts that were critical in the formation of American public administration. The degree of duplication and divergence between the two traditions is noted. The next section speculates why the French literature disappeared, and what that disappearance suggests as future directions for the field in the United States. * This article challenges the viewpoint that public administration is an American invention. Virtually every significant concept that existed in the American literature as late as 1937 had already been published in France by 1859; most had been published by 1812. The French literature included the politics/administration dichotomy (with its refutation), 68 "principles," the elements of POSDCORB, and techniques for the motivation of workers. On the weak side, French literature lacked the focus on supervisor-worker relationships that Taylor brought to American theorists. Therefore, the French could not anticipate the motivational studies that became common in the United States after 1938. The French literature is described here through concepts that later became popular in the United States. The strengths and weaknesses of the two traditions are compared. The article then suggests reasons why the French literature disappeared and speculates on lessons that American public administration can learn from the difficulties encountered by the French. For this study, the literature is summarized through six sources. Three are textbooks, beginning with the earliest work of the period, Charles-Jean Bonnin's Principes d'administration publique, published in 1812.31] Public administration became a pressing topic after Napoleon's administrative revolution in the early 1800s. In 1808, Bonnin drafted an administrative code for these new responsibilities. When the proposed code needed annual updating, he devised some general principles of public administration by which the code could be kept current. This three-volume work contains both his proposed code (in 708 sections) and 68 general principles of public administration, to be described later. A second series of texts was offered by Louis Antoine Macarel in the period 1828-1844.14] Macarel was a professor of "Droit Administratif," a burgeoning field based upon the French concept of administrative protections for citizens. Unlike most of his colleagues, however, he often sought to explain the law through administrative principles, which are used here. Finally, the study of public administration in France peaked in 1859 with the publication of Alexandre Franqoise Auguste Vivien's two-volume Etudes administratives.5 While the book was first published in 1845, the third edition, issued in 1859 after Vivien's death, had the largest impact, and it is still occasionally cited in French administrative histories.

FrenchPublicAdministration Literature 1812-1859

Conventional wisdom notwithstanding, a comprehensive list of French public administration literature from 1812 to 1859 (the years of most intense French efforts) is impractical to compile. Still, the literature that can be located is quite impressive, and the French practice of recounting the existing knowledge on their subjects makes it practical to reconstruct much of the field from the surviving literature.




Two more-specialized authors included Charles Dupin and Edouard Laboulaye. Dupin is still well known in business management circles.6 While most of his works were explicitly about private industrial management, he often used English governmental agencies as a database, and his works were considered directly relevant by public administrators of his day. In 1840, Laboulaye was sent by the French Minister of Public Instruction to study administrative training in German public education. Laboulaye's later report is probably the most widely known in the United States of those mentioned, for it was later used by U.S. reformers in lobbying to create a civil service system.7 Perhaps the most convincing evidence of self-aware French public administration, however, was the journal Revue administrative.8 While relevant articles sometimes appeared in Revue fran aise and Revue de legislation et dejurisprudence, this journal, which appeared in April 1839, was devoted exclusively to the subject of public administration. In the opening issue, the editors announced that they were not interested in general politics nor in the literature of commerce or industry, but only in public administration. The journal regularly published policy studies and organizational analyses. It also kept members informed on recent legal and personnel developments, much as the Public Administration Times does today. Finally, it contained bibliographies of both regulations and public administration literature, and a few books were reprinted in full. It collapsed under political pressure after the editors opposed the administrative reforms of 1848.

The French Study of Public Administration

Two of these works, Bonnin and the Revue, are interesting enough refutations to the common view of the beginnings of public administration that the current French Revue administrative has devoted separate articles to the rediscovery of each.9 Vivien might deserve similar treatment for U.S. audiences. However, it is ultimately more useful for the sake of comparison to summarize the entire discipline through a number of concepts that existed in American public administration literature by 1937. That ending date, the halfway mark of the American century of the field, is intentionally chosen for its inclusion of POSDCORB but exclusion of Barnard, as is explained in the analysis later. The American concepts have been chosen for their utility in explaining the French literature and comparing it to the American equivalents. No effort has been made to "rank" the list by American standards since American literature is not the topic. Still, the significance of the concepts for the American heritage should be clear. 1. That a dichotomy exists between politics and administration Perhaps no concept is so basic to the development of American public administration as the politics/

administration dichotomy. It was used by Wilson to justify the study of administrative efficiency in a democracy, and it was a central theme for Goodnow, Willoughby, and others before being refuted or revised by Blachly and Oatman in 1934 and by Waldo and others in the 1940s.]01 Nevertheless, the dichotomy was not only a French invention, but they made better use of it once they developed the concept. There was a hint of it as early as 1748, when Montesquieu described government as being logically divided into three branches but also noted that daily police functions did not exactly fit into the scheme because they were directed by regulations, not I legislation. By 1812, Bonnin elevated this administrative "exception" into his own tripartite division of state authority. He argued that "Administration" needed to be studied separately from both the "State" and "Government," since administration involved the day-to-day details of implementing political decisions.12 The most direct statement of the dichotomy, however, appears in Vivien. "The executive power itself is divided into two branches: the political, which is to say the moral direction of the general interests of the nation; and the administrative, which consists principally in the accomplishments of public services."13 The French needed the dichotomy for two reasons. First, they used it to justify their administrative code which was independent from traditional "political and judicial laws."'4 Second, they used refutation of the dichotomy to help determine what should be in the code. From the beginning, the French recognized that the dichotomy was artificial and desirable, but that administrators actually made policy all the time.15They feared this intermingling of politics and administration for the effective operation of both sides. Intervening legislators could too easily make administration ineffective; policymaking bureaucrats had a natural tendency to become arbitrary and power-hungry.16 Therefore, the French studied the dichotomy to determine where controls were needed. One obvious concern was that geographical distance from Paris gave administrators more discretion, requiring closer monitoring.17 Another difficulty was that financial experts tended to accumulate too much power and arrogance.18 Some of the specific controls are discussed as they arise in the following discussion. However, the French were optimistic about their ability to handle the pitfalls of the dichotomy. After the 1852 constitution, Vivien was confident that the balance between politics and administration was secure.19 2. That the scientific study of public administration will lead to the discovery of principles Belief in science was one of the central tenets that tied the field together in the United States as it arose from such diverse roots as Woodrow Wilson and Frederick Taylor. Over a half-century earlier, these same elements gathered behind the same banner in France.




Bonnin wrote to convince his readers that administration "can be regulated by positive laws, by fixed principles, and it can be submitted to uniform and invariable procedures .. ."20 Similarly in the workshops, Dupin felt the need to develop a science to discover the rules by which work could be reduced.2' Admittedly, not all French scholars meant the same thing we would now mean by administrative "principles." For instance, Professor Macarel described several in his book, Cours d'administration generale, that were little more than statements of constitutional rights, or even common sense.2 However, more than half of the 68 principles outlined by Bonnin as the foundation of his administrative code were rules by which administration could operate more efficiently and responsibly than they could without a principle-based code.23 Also, unlike Gulick, Bonnin wrote organizational principles for all levels of the bureaucracy from supervisors to ministers. Bonnin's list also clearly reflected the French assumption that administration was the most critical branch of government for assuring human happiness and domestic tranquility. Finally, while the principles often incorporated the names of specific offices that then existed, they would be applicable to equivalent offices in virtually any centralized administrative state that actively sought to protect individual rights. The French, incidentally, did not believe that administrative principles could be effectively adopted in the United States. Because they considered the legislature to be the dominant branch of American government, they argued that the executive would not be given enough independence to implement efficient principles.24

The one place in which the French universally felt themselves to be failing was in the establishment of central libraries to maintain collections of regulations and administrative literature.28Macarel's ElDmens de jurisprudence administrative and later the Revue administrative both attempted to fill the gap by republishing everything in concise lists, although the task was clearly too large for such easy solutions. 4. (P)OSDCORB: That administrators must plan Some may forget that Gulick's POSDCORB was offered as an answer to the question, "What is the work of the chief executive? What does he do?"29 The French did not forget this distinction at all. Both Vivien and Bonnin established in their definitions of the politics/ administration dichotomy that planning is the function of the chief executive-the "government," as Bonnin put it.

Virtually every significant concept that existed in American public administration literature by 1937 had already been published in France by 1859.
However, French prefets and above were also forced by their jobs to be broadly-based technicians in ways that are still unrivalled by most American "experts," and the difference was visible in their literature. Prefets were responsible for the regulation and development of the industry, culture, and educational systems within their districts, and their literature reflected the need for a wide array of technical training.30 Today, administrative policy studies still consider the technical aspects of such diverse subjects as the space sciences and medicine, and local American officials, like the earlier French prefets, need training in a variety of technologies. However, current administrative journals would consider it inappropriate to reprint entire books on these subjects, as the Revue administrative did with the chemistry of iron smelting, the economic impacts of steamships, and similar subjects. French administrative training also concentrated very heavily on statistics so that officials could measure the developmental needs of their districts and help plan for future legislation.3' 5. P(O)SDCORB: That bureaucracy must be organized into a hierarchy, preferably with single executives To Gulick, "organizing" was a strategy to accomplish "coordinating." To the French, it was a strategy for assuring the domestic tranquility that meant national survival. To accomplish that, they introduced several concepts that were rediscovered by the Americans. To begin, both Bonnin and Vivien worked to create a hierarchy through the clear authority of single executives.32 Singular authority, however, was not enough to make a hierarchy work. Bonnin also argued that the organizational divisions must be neither too large nor

3. That administration be taughtto practitioners can

in schools From the beginning, the French designed their literature so that the principles could be taught in the classroom, and the first National School of Administration was founded in 1848.125] Before that, however, several bureaus established their own schools for the in-service training of employees.26 The content of some of the French curricula is also still known.27 Rigorous courses of study of three to four years were common. Furthermore, except for their concentration on political science and constitutional law, the courses of study came surprisingly close to meeting the current standards of the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA). The French emphasized practical education reinforced with "political economy, statistics, and parliamentary eloquence." They also encouraged the use of adjunct faculty to supplement legal instruction with day-to-day applications. To some reformers, such as Laboulaye, this was not enough. Using the German model, he wished to integrate administrative training into all public school curricula. His proposal, however, had little apparent support in the French literature.




too small to avoid the possibility that coordination could collapse.33 Without using the label "span of control," or offering the specific numbers that Americans were fond of creating, the concept was implemented in Bonnin's code. Similarly, Vivien was quite concerned that authority and responsibility be matched. Using the same terminology applied today, he argued that the 1852 constitution had tried to restore this concept at the ministerial level, although not to his satisfaction.34 Separately, he complained that a breakdown in this concept at lower levels of the hierarchy caused bureaucrats to become impersonal and unadventurous.35 6. PO(S)DCORB: That the placement, training, and conditions of employment must be conducive to the organization's purpose The wording of this concept is consistent with both Gulick and the French. However, as the French would have argued, it is not consistent with the merit system that later evolved in the United States. In today's vocabulary, the French would have contended that any provision that was inconsistent with personnel management was also inconsistent with personnel merit. For instance, no support could be found in any of the literature for entrance exams as a method of selection. Vivien considered them "often superficial and incomplete" for testing the discretion and morality needed by government managers.36To Bonnin, "all the functionaries in the administrative order are and ought to be nominated by the 'prince' because they are his direct agents for the execution of the laws and the management of public affairs."37 Their goal, however, was not a spoils system, but accountability. Vivien argued that stability of employment was essential to high morale.38 To limit the possibility of abuse, Macarel noted with pride that subprefets were chosen by prefets, free from interference by the crown.39 Beyond that, Dupin and others wanted compensation based on a classification system that considered the physical demands, training, and expertise needed by the position.40 This was to be supplemented with a meritpay system based on performance. Vivien even defended promotional exams for lower-level positions, once entry had been determined by the true merit qualifications of political and moral character.4' As already mentioned, the French made early provisions for in-service training. Also, retirement pensions were established for some employees in 1826. 421 Throughout this period, others stressed the value for motivation of extending pensions to the entire service and offering regularly-scheduled vacations.43 7. POS(D)CORB: That executives must make decisions, issue orders, and provide leadership within the organization Napoleon's advisor, Rederer, suggested that there were 11 administrative functions, which were renamed

"functions of the executive" by Macarel in 1828.[441 These included instruction of subordinates, direction, "impulsion" or motivation, "inspection" or verification of their work, surveillance of needs in one's jurisdiction, decision making, control, dismissal of subordinates, reversal of regulations if they were contrary to law, reparations for administrative injustice, and punishment of subordinates. These functions are both more detailed and more appropriate to operating-level managers than Barnard's, and they could still be used in American administrative texts. However, they are also based on an understanding of authority that is clearly primitive by Chester Barnard's or Mary Parker Follett's standards. The French treated administrative authority in the Wilson-Taylor-Weber tradition as being defined by regulations. They would have been unequipped to deal with Barnard's 1938 argument that authority comes from below, which is why the comparison in this article ends with the 1937 publication of POSDCORB. To the French, as to most American contemporaries of Barnard, direction and persuasion would not have been seen as part of the same concept. 8. POSD(CO)RB: That the various parts of work must be interrelated To the French, improving coordination was the primary purpose for studying public administration. It was their rationale for centralization.45 It was their protection against arbitrary abuse by renegade administrators.46 To the French, coordination was put into practice through two tactics. First, a strict hierarchy was maintained, beginning with the prefect and concluding with the ministers of the departments.47 However, a simple hierarchy was not sufficient to settle administrative questions for the entire government nor to integrate bureaucratic practices with royal directives. For these purposes, the public administrators relied upon the Council of State (Conseil d'Etat), a body of ministers and other advisors to the King with both royal responsibilities and final authority over administrative adjudication.48 9. POSDCO(R)B: That administrators must keep chief executives informed of the impacts of policies and other needs of society Reporting, or keeping the executive informed on administrative needs and progress, was a far more integral part of the prefet's job than was the case for any American administrative position prior to the creation of the Bureau of the Budget. The reason is simpleprefets were responsible for the development of everything from industry and transportation to culture within their districts.49 To help in that massive assignment, public administration literature continually emphasized the importance of statistics in administrative training.50 The Revue administrative also bombarded prefets with




the technical articles described under "planning" above. The French also expected the prefets to keep the government informed on the need for new legislation. As part of this process, fairly massive monthly reports were required on the budgetary implications of their work.5 10. POSDCOR(B): That budgets must be planned and financial accountability of administrators maintained The Revue administrative noted that "of all the laws whose execution is confided in the government, the one that exercises the greatest influence over the general prosperity is the law of the budget, which regulates at the same time the bases of administration of the country and the costs that the administration imposes."52 The Revue also included an analysis of the differences between the budgets of 1830 and 1843.[531 However, because of their desire to make the politics/ administration dichotomy work, to French public administrators budgeting really meant financial accountability. On this subject, they accepted intensive financial auditing as the price of maintaining political independence while protecting society against the occasionally abusive bureaucrat.54To train administrators in matters of financial accountability, they created an entire subdiscipline of budget "compatibilite," a subject which was advocated in literally every text and which was taught and updated in every issue of Revue administrative.55

in the United States, but their focus was locked at the level of the system itself. Had their literature continued, no behavioral revolution was on the horizon.

What Happened To This Literature?

The easy part of the answer is to explain why the literature declined. From Vivien to the rebirth of French public administration schools and journals in 1948, the literature dwindled under the indignities suffered by French public administrators through increasing legislative interference, three invasions, and numerous changes of regimes. Until the modern era, the French experienced the same problem that they had used to explain the lack of American public administration: politics drove out the politics/administration dichotomy. That does not explain, however, how the preexisting body of literature nearly vanished, so that Americans had to spend 50 years reinventing some of the same basic arguments. The simple answer is that it did not disappear; it has remained in a few French and American libraries. Instead, it was forgotten, and while there is no way to prove why that occurred, an obvious hint is contained in the literature itself. There is no indication that anyone writing in the Revue administrative or that Vivien had ever heard of Bonnin. They often struggled to restate the arguments of Napoleon's time, but their footnotes reflected a fading memory of that earlier literature. French literature in public administration was being forgotten even as it was being written. Today, even the latter authors are subjects only for historians who are more interested in their roles in French politics and administration than in their administrative theories. This is not surprising. The same thing is happening to U.S. literature! Americans still praise Wilson, Goodnow, and White, but few others are cited who lived before the active memories of those still writing. In 1986, Howard McCurdy updated his 1972 annotated bibliography of the most cited books in the field with a note that "the books from the first fifty years of public administration dwindled in importance as the memory of the era of orthodoxy grew dim."56 The French literature died for the same reason American literature is dying; it was written to be relevant to a government that passed. With few exceptions, the field does not forgive works for proclaiming loyalties to outmoded regimes merely because they were based in principles that may still apply. In France, governments passed more frequently through revolutions and conquests. In the United States, Herbert Croly, Graham Wallas, Frederick Cleveland, and endless others have fallen to a social revolution, or perhaps simply to time.

The Missing Principles

Most of what were accepted as principles in American public administration in 1937 were in the French literature much earlier. However, as already mentioned, Barnard was not there; nor was Follett, who had anticipated his arguments in the 1920s. But more importantly, another link was missing, without which Barnard could never have evolved in French literature. The French had Henri Fayol with his systems approach to Scientific Management, but they had no Frederick Taylor. Taylor's contribution to American literature may best be appreciated by noticing what his absence did to the French. Dupin had studied under Andrew Ure and Charles Babbage, who were early practitioners of Scientific Management. However, neither Dupin nor anyone else brought back to France the perspective of studying the relationship of the individual worker to the individual manager. That level of analysis was critical. Without studying individual workers, Gantt could not have begun the humanist revolution by speculating why individual workers obeyed. Without that level, the questions asked at Hawthorne would not have been raised, as they were not raised by the French. By 1859, the French had reached a deadend. Their structural studies were comparable to the best produced

Lessons for American Administration

Three lessons stand out for current readers of this French literature. One is the humility that comes from understanding not only that many American administrative discoveries were made elsewhere but also that




the entire field nearly disappeared in France through no apparent fault of the scholars involved. As Kuhn would appreciate, neither the quality nor the relevance of the research guarantees its survival if the decision-making structure served by academic inquiry collapses.57 The focus of this article is on French administrative studies, not American. Nevertheless, there is an interesting parallel between the two sets of literature that invites speculation; both have been written in an environment in which the solutions to administrative problems are increasingly sought in the political arena rather than in administrative studies. Because the field has never seriously entertained the possibility that it could vanish, there is no way to know whether the parallel is significant. Determining precisely what happened to the French literature after 1859, however, takes on more than historical interest for future researchers. A second lesson is also from Kuhn. Academic development in this case occurred in pronounced phases. The French, like Wilson, faced the need to meld constitutional liberties with administrative efficiency. Their efforts were intensive enough to push structural analyses beyond many later achievements by Americans. However, without a shift to study of individuals and groups, they could not achieve the behavioral revolution which later impacted the field. The final lesson is about the purpose of administrative study. It is pointless to speculate whether American

or French administrative studies were better or more advanced on anything other than specific concepts. Their different cultures have required each to seek different solutions, and the cross pollination of literature has made the picture too confusing to isolate the two "traditions." Gulick, for instance, owes an obvious debt to Fayol; Fayol, however, owes debts to the British, Germans, and Americans. The French literature discussed here, however, was apparently unknown to most later American authors. Nevertheless, the reader is continually struck by the degree to which the French used the same terminology that is now used in the U.S. and by how often they suggested the same hypotheses. This could be evidence of additional trails of cross pollination that are as yet undiscovered. Alternately, it could be interpreted as evidence that under all the cultural differences, there may actually be some fundamentals.

Daniel W. Martin is an Associate Professor of Government and Public Administration and Director of the MPA Program at the University of Baltimore. He earned his PhD from the Maxwell School at Syracuse University in 1979. His earlier publications in science policy include the book, Three Mile Island: Prologue or Epilogue?, and emergency management reports for ASPA and other organizations.


The author thanks Larry Thomas and Ron Lippincott for their helpful suggestions on an earlier draft of the manuscript. 6. 1. Frederick C. Mosher, "Introduction," American Public Administration: Past, Present, and Future, Frederick C. Mosher, ed. (University: University of Alabama Press, 1975), p. 7. 2. Dwight Waldo, The Enterprise of Public Administration (Novato, CA: Chandler and Sharp, 1980), p. 10. 3. Charles-Jean Bonnin, Principes d'administration publique, 3d ed., 3 vol. (Paris: Chez Renaudiere, 1812). The second edition (Paris: Clament freres, 1809), is much shorter. The first edition, hardly more than a monograph, is from 1808, although the title is uncertain. In the third edition, Bonnin identified it as Considerations sur la necessite d'un code administratif. However, neither Bibliotheque Nationale nor the U.S. Library of Congress lists such a title. The U.S. National Union Catalogue lists one copy of De l'importance et de la necessite d'un code administratif for 1808 with no publisher and 70 pages, and it is a likely candidate for the first edition. 4. Louis Antoine Macarel, Des tribunaux administratifs (Paris: J.-P. Roret, Libraire, 1828); also Elemens de jurisprudence administrative (Bruxelles [Brussels]: Societe Typographique Belge, 1837); also Cours de Droit Administratif, 4 vol. (Paris: Gustave Thorel, Libraire, 1844). 5. Alexandre Francois Auguste Vivien, Etudes administratives, 3d ed., 2 vol. (Paris: Librairie de Guillaumin & Cie, 1859). The second edition, in 1852, and the first edition, in 1845, are shorter





in length and have correspondingly less data from the turbulent environment of French public administration. Charles Dupin, Discours sur le sort des ouvriers (Paris: Bachelier, Libraire, 1831). Current reviews include Claude S. George, Jr., The History of Management Thought, 2d ed. (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1972), p. 75, and Daniel A. Wren, The Evolution of Management Thought (New York: Ronald Press, 1972), pp. 76-78. Edouard Laboulaye, "De l'enseignement et du noviciat administratif in Allemagne," Revue de legislation et du jurisprudence, vol. 18 (1843), pp. 513-611. Reprinted separately (Paris: [rue Bergere, 21], 1843). Note that this has been translated and reprinted in U.S. House Report 8, 39th Congress, 2nd session (January 3, 1867), pp. 14-29. The journal was published for 11 years, from 1839 through 1849. While Bibliotheque Nationale holds the complete collection, only 1839-1847 could be located in the U.S., at the University of Illinois. Pierre Escoube, "Charles-Jean Bonnin, precurseur de la Science administrative," Revue administrative, vol. 11 (January/ February 1958), pp. 15-18. Jean-Emile Reymond, "La Revue Administrative ... de 1839 a 1849," Revue administrative, vol. 5 (1952), pp. 359-67. Note that the current journal shares a title, but no other relation to the earlier version. Frederick Blachly and Miriam Oatman, Administrative Legislation and Adjudication (Washington: Brookings Institution, 1934), p. 37. Dwight Waldo, The Administrative State (New York: Ronald Press, 1948).


DEJA VU: FRENCH ANTECEDENTS OF AMERICAN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 11. Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu, De l'esprit des lois (Geneva: Chez Barillot & fils, 1748), book 26, chapter 24. 12. Bonnin, Principes, vol. 1, pp. 20, 55, and 88. 13. Vivien, Etudes, vol. 1, pp. 3-4. 14. Bonnin, Principes, vol. 1, p. vij. 15. [M. de Rigny], "de l'administration publique, et principalement de l'influence de l'action politique sur ses actes," Revue administrative, Tome 4 (1841), pp. 81-95. 16. Vivien, Etudes, vol. 1, p. 5. 17. Bonnin, Principes, vol. 1, pp. 139-40; also Vivien, Etudes, vol. 1, p. 74. 18. Rigny, "de l'administration," p. 82. 19. Vivien, Etudes, vol. 1, p. 238. 20. Bonnin, Principes, vol. 1, p. xij. 21. Dupin, Discours, p. 16. 22. Macarel, Cours. For a briefer bibliographic review, see Balson, "Cours d'administration g6enrale," Revue administrative, Tome 3 (1840), pp. 169-76. 23. Bonnin, Principes, vol. 2, pp. 273-88. 24. Woodrow Wilson, Congressional Government (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1885); Vivien, Etudes, vol. 1, pp. 18 and 169-70. 25. M. H. Bourdeau de Fontenay, "L'Ecole Nationale d'Administration," Revue administrative, vol. 1 (January-February 1948), pp. 8-13. 26. "Des moyens d'instruction pratique pour les employ6s des administrations," Revue administrative, Tome 8 (1843), pp. 271-73. 27. "De l'institution d'une faculte des sciences politiques et administratives," Revue administrative, Tome 4 (1841), pp. 281-86. 28. M. L., "D'une bibliographie administrative," Revue administrative, 3rd series, Tome 2, Part 2 (1847), pp. 409-20. 29. Luther Gulick, "Notes on the Theory of Organization," Papers on the Science of Administration, Luther Gulick and Lyndall Urwick, eds. (New York: Institute of Public Administration, Columbia University, 1937), p. 13. 30. Bonnin, Principes, vol. 1, p. 43. 31. Ibid., vol. 2, pp. 166-71. 32. For instance, ibid., vol. 1, p. 229. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53.


54. 55. 56.


Ibid., p. 158. Vivien, Etudes, vol. 1, p. 70. Ibid., pp. 60-64. Ibid., p. 65. Bonnin, Principes, vol. 1, p. 152. Vivien, Etudes, vol. 1, pp. 260-65. Macarel, Cours de droit administratif, vol. 1, pp. 201-02. "du Nivellement des salaries des ouvriers," Revue administrative, Tome 4 (1841), pp. 198-203. Vivien, Etudes, vol. 1, pp. 211-12. "Administrative Bulletin," Revue administrative, Tome 3 (1840), p. 128. Vivien, Etudes, vol. 1, pp. 260-91. Rederer is cited in Vivien, Etudes, vol. 1, pp. 307-08; also, Macarel, Tribunaux, pp. 15-17. Vivien, Etudes, vol. 1, p. 45. Bonnin, Principes, vol. 1, p. 22. Ibid., pp. 141-42. V. Balson, "De la jurisdiction administrative," Revue administrative, Tome 3 (1840), p. 24. Bonnin, Principes, vol. 1, p. 43. "Trait6 de Statistique," Revue administrative, Tome 6 (1843), p. 181. "Bulletin administratif," Revue administrative, Tome 3 (1840), pp. 56-62. Goussard, "Cour des Comptes," Revue administrative, Tome 3 (1840), p. 134. "Comparaison des budget g6enraux des recettes et des despenses de l'Etat des deux exercises 1830 et 1843," Revue administrative, Tome 8 (1843), pp. 170-83. Bonnin, Principes, vol. 1, p. 21. Ibid., vol. 2, p. 64. Howard McCurdy, Public Administration: A Bibliography (Washington: College of Public Affairs, American University, 1972), updated as Public Administration: A Bibliographic Guide to the Literature (New York: Marcel Dekker, 1986), p. 6. Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962).