Public Administration in the United States in 1933

1934 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 443-456 ◽  
Author(s):  
John M. Gaus ◽  
Leonard D. White
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Collective Action ◽  
Public Administration ◽  
General Property ◽  
The United States ◽  
National Government ◽  
Property Taxes ◽  
Central Figure ◽  
State And Local ◽  
Governmental Action

The extent and variety of governmental action in the United States in 1933 invite the observer to search out those developments which are a continuation of the old, those which are novel, and those which may be termed transitional. Hence he becomes the central figure in Mr. Chesterton's game of “Bury the Prophet.”National Governmental Functions. The shrinkage of state and local incomes from the yield of the general property taxes and the limited yields from other forms of taxation as the depression deepened left the national government as the most available instrument through which collective action could be taken.

scholarly journals The Patrimonial Turn In The American State

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey Broxmeyer
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Collective Action ◽  
Public Administration ◽  
The United States ◽  
Administrative State ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Political Entrepreneurs ◽  
Modern Experience ◽  
American State

Donald Trump’s presidency represents a “patrimonial turn” in the American state. The trend is departure from modern experience, particularly the fusion of personal business and officeholding functions. Yet, governance by family and friends has deep historical roots. The nineteenth-century spoils system mixed public administration with party and personal business in a way that rhymes with recent developments. The Long Reagan Coalition’s project to deconstruct the administrative state has reopened the door to sweeping bureaucratic experimentation by political entrepreneurs like Trump and his appointees. Today, patrimonialism has emerged as a management vehicle to solve problems of collective action, binding together an unstable, and otherwise unlikely, political alliance. Debates on de-democratization in the United States would be well served by examining the implantation of patrimonialism in historical and comparative perspective.

Foreign Affairs Federalism in the United States

2019 ◽  
pp. 258-275
Author(s):  
Ernest A. Young
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Local Governments ◽  
The United States ◽  
National Government ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Political Life ◽  
State Governance ◽  
State And Local ◽  
External Forces ◽  
Domestic Affairs

Although the American Founders intended to centralize power over foreign affairs in the national government, the modern reality is considerably more complex. To be sure, the national government dominates the core of foreign affairs: the conduct of foreign policy toward other nations. Yet even here, states and municipalities intrude from time to time. More broadly, state and local governments remain important players in areas such as immigration and commercial regulation that have important international dimensions. Federalism constrains—legally and especially politically—the international agreements that the national government can enter into, and central authorities remain dependent on state and local officials to implement many important international commitments. Internal and external forces have combined to make a multilayered approach to foreign affairs inevitable in the United States. Internal forces include the constitutional structure itself, which stops short of giving exclusive foreign affairs powers to the national government and reserves important authority to the states, as well as the more contemporary impact of polarization in American political life. On the external side, globalization has blurred the very distinction between foreign and domestic affairs, and international law’s increasing preoccupation with nations’ treatment of their own citizens has rendered many traditional areas of state governance subjects of international concern.

Is This the Care We Need?: An Examination of Childcare Policy in Pennsylvania

Commonwealth ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennie Sweet-Cushman ◽  
Ashley Harden
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Child Care ◽  
Current System ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
Federal State ◽  
Women And Politics ◽  
Richard Nixon ◽  
State And Local ◽  
Childcare Policy

For many families across Pennsylvania, child care is an ever-present concern. Since the 1970s, when Richard Nixon vetoed a national childcare program, child care has received little time in the policy spotlight. Instead, funding for child care in the United States now comes from a mixture of federal, state, and local programs that do not help all families. This article explores childcare options available to families in the state of Pennsylvania and highlights gaps in the current system. Specifically, we examine the state of child care available to families in the Commonwealth in terms of quality, accessibility, flexibility, and affordability. We also incorporate survey data from a nonrepresentative sample of registered Pennsylvania voters conducted by the Pennsylvania Center for Women and Politics. As these results support the need for improvements in the current childcare system, we discuss recommendations for the future.

The US Bureau of Efficiency: Not RIP in 1933?

Public Voices ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 44
Author(s):  
Mordecai Lee
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Administration ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Bureau ◽  
Efficient Management ◽  
The Us ◽  
Ongoing Support ◽  
Full Day

The United States Bureau of Efficiency (BOE), which had been established in 1916, was abolished in 1933 when President Hoover signed an omnibus appropriation bill on his last full day in office. Given Hoover's commitment to businesslike and efficient management and his ongoing support for the work of the Bureau throughout his presidency, what if he had acted differently and prevented its abolition? This fictional public administration history explores how Hoover could have kept BOE in existence and, if he had, how six of his successors might have treated the agency as part of their administrations.

A Comprehensive Review of the Evolution of Accounting Standards for State and Local Government Pensions and Other Postemployment Benefits in The United States

2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-77
Author(s):  
Dale L. Flesher ◽  
Craig Foltin ◽  
Gary John Previts ◽  
Mary S. Stone
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Local Government ◽  
Accounting Standards ◽  
The United States ◽  
Pension Funds ◽  
Defined Benefit ◽  
Defined Contribution ◽  
Defined Contribution Plans ◽  
State And Local Government ◽  
State And Local

ABSTRACT Both the business media and the popular press have emphasized the underfunding problems associated with pension funds that are set aside for state and local government workers, a group that also includes teachers and professors at state-affiliated colleges and universities. The realization that pension funds are typically underfunded stems from the fact that the accounting standards associated with state and local government employee pension funds have led to greater transparency since 2011. This paper examines, explains, and interprets the historical development over the last 70 years of accounting standards for state and local government pension funds in the United States. Changing accounting standards, along with economic and social change, have led to consequences such as employers transforming their pension programs to avoid substantial costs and significant liabilities, for example by changing from defined benefit to defined contribution plans.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document