Administrative Reform. By Caiden Gerald. (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1969. Pp. 239. $6.50.)
E. A. Bock
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1955528
IF: 8.048
1971-09-01
American Political Science Review
Abstract:Administrative Reform. By Gerald Caiden. (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1969. Pp. 239. $6.50.) This book started with the author's efforts to fashion a graduate course on administrative reform. It is offered as a "preliminary survey map" of the subject. Since he found no comprehensive treatment of administrative reform in any "major textbook," and since he found many references "unsatisfactory, unrewarding, and even irrelevant," he bolstered the minutes of his class discussions with a survey of the literature up to 1968, and seeks in his own volume to present existing knowledge more systematically, to abstract preliminary generalizations, and to prepare "for the stage when purposeless, superficial, and sporadic research on uncoordinated topics can be avoided." Few of the thoughts to which the author ascribes putative importance are expressed less than four or five times in this garrulous, rambling treatment. If the publisher (or his non-reform minded editor) would pay the reader a dollar for each separate instance in which the author complains about the lack of precision or rigor in the writings of others, or the damage done to the subject by variations in definitions, the reader would come off with a free book and pocket money. The author chooses as his definition "the artificial inducement of administrative transformation against resistance," thereby distinguishing reform from patterns of organizational cooperation that adapt to change without obstruction. His initial chapters deal with the relationship of the subject to administrative theory and to writings about social change. In a chapter on the process of administrative reform he offers some process stages from the works of Mosher and Goodenough. A chapter on obstacles to administrative reform summarizes historical, social, technological and other general categories of difficulties. And a concluding chapter on the "Quintessence of Administrative Reform" includes some typologies of reformers and sixteen maxims for reformers starting with "He should not attempt everything at once" and ending with "He should balance gains and losses. . . ." Unless he reads it rapidly—at the pace it seems to have been written and published—the reader is likely to stub his toes on so many unsupported generalizations, carelessly used words, repetitions, tautologies, diversions, and apparent contradictions that his irritation may cause him to close his mind against the possibility that administrative reform may be a concept worth deeper and more systematic study (a possibility that had already been eminently established in 1968 with the work of Mosher and in John Montgomery's insightful, thorough study for the Comparative Administration Group). For example, the longest chapter, "Perspectives on Administrative Reform," opens with a declaration of the usefulness of case studies in seeking "universal features that can be combined into a general theory of administrative reform." This inducement to read 50 pages of so-called case studies is fortified by a statement that " . . . a survey of administrative reform in public bureaucracies over the past three hundred years reveals that it is timeless— the same sorts of motives stirred reform advocates in ancient China as in Czarist Russia and modern Brazil. . . ." The first case study is a seven-page synthesis of the experience of all "premodern Empires" with administrative reform. The author gives us his version of the relevant parts of Eisenstadt's book without mentioning a single empire by name. The next section describes the achievement of "contemporary bureaucratic" status from feudal starting points by France (two pages), Prussia (one), England (almost two), Russia (two plus), and the U.S. (one-quarter). Each concludes with a summary of the features of administrative reform that strike the author as noteworthy. This five-nation assortment is then rounded off with a list of seven comparative observations, one of which is: "Though specific reforms may appear pragmatic and empirical, they are manifestations of ideological and ethical values." The latter distillation, for which, characteristically, virtually no detailed evidence is offered, will surprise the reader who recalls that two pages earlier the author in summarizing the British experience started with the statement that its "Administrative reforms were pragmatic; they bad no ideological motive," and that one page before that he made the same summary statement about Prussia.
Sociology,Political Science