Ogo Greatbritain

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 144

Omar Guerrero-Orozco

Public Administration
in Great Britain

'.
#
DE CULTURA

Mexican Culture Seminar


State of Mexico's Institute of Public Administration
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION IN GREAT BRITAIN:


HISTORY, INSTITUTIONS, AND IDEAS

Omar Guerrero-Orozco

Whoever shall read the admirable


treatise of Tacitus on the manners of
the Germans, will find that it is from
them the English have borrowed the
idea of their political government.
This beautiful system was invented
first in the woods.

Montesquieu, De l’espirit des lois, 1741

Translated by Margaret Schroeder


Revised by Omar Guerrero-Orozco

1
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Prologue 5
Introduction 7

Part One
THE BRITISH PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Chapter 1
THE BRITISH CULTURE 15

Cultural Diversity in Administration 15

Neo-Latins and Anglo-Saxons 17


Causes of the “decline” of the neo-latin peoples 17
Looking to the future 19

Germanic Peoples in Britannia 21


Roman Britannia 21
Germanic migration 25

Destruction of the Roman Civilization 26


Halting National Unity 28

Chapter 2
THE CHARACTER OF THE BRITISH PEOPLE 30

Insularity and Territoriality 30


The British 34
Politics 38
The Language 41

Chapter 3
THE FORMATION OF THE BRITISH ADMINISTRATIVE STATE: INTERNAL
FACTORS 45

Causes of the Uniqueness of the British Administration 45


Judicial Administration as Public Administration 47
The Insular Influence 50
The Industrial Revolution 52

2
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

Chapter 4

THE FORMATION OF THE BRITISH ADMINISTRATIVE STATE: EXTERNAL


FACTORS 56

The Role of India in the Modernization of the British Administration 56


The Administrative Revolution 61

Chapter 5
THE BRITISH ADMINISTRATIVE CULTURE 64

Administrative Discretion 64
Administrative Law 66
The Civil Service 70
The Public Corporation 74
Local Administration and Centralization 78

Chapter 6
BRITISH ADMINISTRATIVE CULTURE AND THE
NEOMANAGERIAL MENACE 82

The Privatization of Public Administration 82


The Neomanagerial Reform 85

Part Two
ADMINISTRATIVE THOUGHT IN GREAT BRITAIN

Chapter 7
THE ORIGIN OF BRITISH ADMINISTRATIVE THOUGHT 89

The Briton, a Practical Man 89


The Founders of British Administrative Thought 94

Chapter 8
THE SCIENCE OF THE BRITISH PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION IN THE
TWENTIETH CENTURY 96

The London Circle 96


W.H. Moreland: the Epistemological Construction of the British
Public Administration 102

3
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

Chapter 9
INCORPORATION OF THE BRITISH PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
INTO GLOBAL ACADEMIC CIRCLES 105

Maturation of British Administrative Thought 105


Richard Warner 105
Edgar Norman Gladden 108
C.H. Sisson 111

Consolidation of the Science of British Public Administration 113

Chapter 10
CONTEMPORARY BRITISH ADMINISTRATIVE THOUGHT 120

The Theory of Public Administration 120


Administrative Ideas in the New Managerial Age 124

EPILOGUE 129
BIBLIOGRAPHY 132

4
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

PROLOGUE

In studies of public administration, it is a common practice to concentrate


on the cases of Germany and France. Both countries are considered exemplar
models of the evolution of public administration. On one hand, Germany stands
out by its public service and its schools of public administration. On the other,
France enjoys of a celebrated reputation form its intendences (quartermasters)
and centralization.

In contrast with both countries, Great Britain tends to be less attractive


despite the prestige achieved by its civil service, which is usually considered
behind the German and French, and with poor originality. Similarly, its
administrative thought is usually judged as underdeveloped and unsubstantial.
Naturally, these points of view are the product of not knowing the evolution of
British administration, and in consequence, of wrong and biased interpretations.
In fact, Great Britain is fascinating because of the hidden secrets of its public
administration, which provide a wide and stimulating research agenda.

The objective of this book is to bring the transcendence of British public


administration into perspective. By studying Britain’s public administration from
a perspective outside the country, we show that its historical evolution has an
ascendant character that originates in a chaotic organization that eventually
was replaced by a rational scheme. More specifically, the amateurs that initially
formed the British public service were replaced by professional public servants
that today enjoy of a similar reputation to that of Germany and France. For this
purpose, we make use of administrative culture as an epistemological resource
that facilitates the observation of its own singularities, i.e. its being, doing,
feeling and thinking. Such a resource exposes a country endowed with a
modern and efficient public administration. Moreover, it shows that Britain has
developed an outstanding administrative thought, necessary to understand its
peculiar case.

Great Britain is not well known in the administrative literature. For


example, recent studies have paid more attention to the Roman heritage and its
transcendence in the development of the country. Besides Adriano’s wall and
the public baths from Bath, Roman public administration developed important
projects such as the roads and, a masterpiece, the postal service. Beyond the
Roman legacy, Britain has developed an outstanding theory of the
administrative estate. This comprises the Exchequer, public enterprises,
centralization, and administrative law. One of the fundamental contributions of
the British political regime, self-government, has evolved asymptotically close to
the local governments form the European continent, and progressively interacts
with various centralization processes.

Two British authors outstand among the main contributors to


administrative thought. The first is William Harrison Moreland, founder of the
science of public administration in Great Britain. The second, Edgar Norman
Gladden, systematized the study of public administration through the
development of three texts that today remain as masterpieces for the teachings
and diffusion of the discipline. The ideas published in a world-class book in the

5
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

1940s by a forgotten author, Richard Warner, are central to understand the


evolution Britain’s public administration. Britain leaded the privatization of the
public administration, not only as a detachment process of public companies,
but also as scientific of knowledge. However, the antidote to neoliberalism was
found in the same academic halls; developing a body of knowledge in favor of
public administration.

In summary, we can say that in British public administration, what is


unknown seems to be more interesting than what is known.

The book is organized in ten chapters, grouped into two parts. Chapter
one introduces the idea of a British administrative culture by studying its Briton,
Saxon, and Roman components. In chapter two we emphasize the insular
aspect of the country through the lens of its language and politics. The purpose
of chapter three is to analyze the formation process of a British state by looking
at internal factors such as the development of a judicial administration and the
industrial revolution. In contrast, chapter studies the external factors that
contributed to the raise of a British state: the British experience in India and the
administrative revolution. In chapter six, we focus on the British administrative
culture, from which its civil service, public enterprises, and local governments
stand out. Moreover, this chapter introduces the public management in Britain,
where it originated and subsequently diffused across the globe. These chapters
integrate the first part of the book, providing a general overview of the public
administration in Britain.

The second part of the book treats the British administrative thought in
depth. It begins with chapter seven, where we explore the early origins of
seminal administrative ideas in the country. Chapter eight carefully studies the
‘London Circle’, a group of remarkable intellectuals who leaded the frontier of
administrative thought in Britain. Some of its most prominent members were
Harold Laski and Herman Finer. Additionally, we restitute the place of an
outstanding forgotten thinker, W. H. Moreland, as the founder of the discipline
of public administration in Britain. In chapter 9 we study the contributions of
Richard Warner, E. N. Gladden, and C. H. Sisson, as part of a worldwide
process in which countries assimilated public administration ideas as part of
their institutions. Finally, chapter ten provides a detailed exposition of
contemporary administrative thought.

Omar Guerrero-Orozco

Autumn, 2014

6
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

INTRODUCTION

I
It was some time ago that the study of public administration first began to
examine administrative culture from development and comparative
methodology points of view. One of the pioneering works in this regard
appeared in the mid-1950s, and stimulated the contributions of further
researchers whose many years of work laid the foundation for a cosmopolitan
vision of public administration. Among them were Lynton Cladwell, Ferrel
Heady, Albert Lepawsky and Fred Riggs (Siffin, 1957). This research, which is
still ongoing, focuses on analyzing the unique aspects of the administrative
culture of each respective country on the basis of its degree of overall
“administrative development” as well as more specific features, such as the
degree of coordination between politics and administration, and the
professionalism of the country’s public servants. The results bring to light truths
that cannot be hidden, such as the relative failure of Western styles of
administration when they are implemented in Asia, Africa and Latin America;
the preeminence of local administrations and the clear limitations of technical
support. An examination of administrative culture reveals traits related to
organizational diversity, in which the contrasts between administrations, not to
mention hybrid specimens, are clearly reflected (Hood, 1998:6–7).

The most surprising result, however, was that the argument about the
universality of the principles of Western public administration –taken for granted
thanks to the globalization visible since the 1960s– was still incomplete and
immature. It should be noted that this theory was endorsed by distinguished
academics with high-flying theories, but whose work in the area was not entirely
fruitful. Some of the most notable of these include Paul Appleby, Albert
Lepawsky and Pedro Muñoz Amato, whose books are required reading in the
public administration curriculum (Appleby, 1949; Lepawsky, 1949, Muñoz
Amato, 1954). The discernable cause was that in Europe and the United States
of the 1960s, a triumphalist spirit –if not arrogance and academic vanity–
prevailed with regard to the development of the theory of public administration,
along with a crass ignorance of administrative realities in Asian, African and
Latin American countries. It was at this point that the science of public
administration lost its innocence.

The lack of studies on administrative culture in general, and on the


unique administrative cultures of individual countries, became evident.
Unfortunately, studies of administrative development were abandoned.

The aim of this book is to contribute to a revival of the study of the


development of public administration, with the novel perspective of fully
adopting the concept of culture. Thus we take as a principle the perspective of
A.L. Kroeber, who explained, firstly, that culture is endowed with inherent
qualities. It is transmitted not by genetic inheritance mechanisms but by mutual
conditioning among “zygotes,” since it constitutes a social fact. Fred Riggs
emphasizes the hereditary nature of culture, which, in his view, means any
practice, standard or technique invented by humans that is transmitted from
generation to generation. While it can be modified in the course of transmission,
its distinctive character is its relative continuity (Riggs, 1970: 103). Secondly,

7
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

Riggs’s claim helps us understand why culture, whatever its origins in or


through individuals, rapidly tends to become supra-personal and anonymous.
Thirdly, culture is generally defined in terms of patterns or regularities of form
and style, as well as meaning. Moreover, it is distinguished by its incorporation
of values that can be publicly formulated, such as practices, felt implicitly as
customs by the society holding the culture (Kroeber 1952: 104).
In a previous work, where we treated the general aspects of
administrative culture, we defined it in a broad sense: administrative culture is
transmitted by the social conditioning between administrators and the
administered, not by genetic inheritance mechanisms, because it constitutes a
social fact. This explains why even though its origins emerge from or through
individuals, administrative culture rapidly tends to evolve into something that is
supra-personal and anonymous. By extension, administrative culture is also
defined in terms of patterns or regularities of form and style, as well as
meaning, whose configuration is usually, all though not exclusively, reflected in
organization and bureaucracy. Finally, public administration is distinguished by
the incorporation of publicly formulated values that facilitate explaining their
procedures as customs and practices. By this, its ritualism and
bureaucratization are made intelligible (Kroeber 1952: 104). In summary,
administrative culture implies any practice, norm or technique invented in the
administrative process that is transmitted from generation to generation. While it
can be modified in the course of transmission, its relative continuity is what
gives it its distinctive character (Riggs, 1970: 103).

Style, in turn, refers to the overall impression created by a large number


of individual habitual acts and behavioral facets, each of which has its own
critical rationality, and each of which is responsible for its own set of conditions
and demands (Chapman and Dunsire 1971: 17). These conditions and
demands change in response to transformations of the environment.
In brief, the culture of public administration consists of the existence,
activities, ideas and feelings of politically organized men as these are reflected
in their administrative institutions, works, knowledge, and practices.

8
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

II

Administrative culture is not fully universal, since the way public affairs
are managed in other parts of the world is doubtless different from how they are
managed in your country or ours. A first iteration to categorizing administrative
cultures is to distinguish – and contrast – “Western” and “oriental” cultures. Let
us begin by doing so.

I have often retold this personal anecdote: Around the middle of 1998, in
Santiago de Chile, I participated in an international seminar where I heard a
speaker say, more or less, that people should stop using the word
“administration” in its Latin sense, and rather use “management” in its English
sense, since it has a more flexible meaning (sic). This advice, which was
spoken with certain disdain, clearly reflects two problems: first, an attempt to
resolve a complex problem with the simple substitution of a word, not to
mention the incongruity which arises. Secondly, the speaker’s semantical,
conceptual and etymological ignorance of the two words leap out: both
‘management’ and ‘administration’ are from the Latin language.
In other words, in addition to blatant ignorance, prejudice in public
administration can take a number of different forms. As we noted, this was
evident until recently in some academic sectors by their scorn for the
expression “public administration” for being Latin and outdated, and their
glorification of the term “public management” for being English and modern.
This is obviously an issue in the English language, where it can be assumed
that there is a clear distinction between public administration and public
management, the two expressions having dissimilar meanings with respect to
what public servants do. Thus public administration, on one hand, tends to be
considered to be outdated and ineffective, while public management on the
other is exalted as modern and active. It even reaches the point where the
former is pictured as a traditional activity based on the mere passive carrying
out of functions, aimed at defending and perpetuating the status quo, while the
latter has the halo of an action-oriented, problem-solving function performed
with innovation and creativity.

The role of prejudice in social issues is long-standing; it may perhaps


have started and been perpetuated in the contrast between East and West, and
persisted through the Manichean dichotomy between the Latin and the Anglo
Saxon within Western administrative culture, a topic to which we return in the
next chapter.

Hence the need to take a clear position on the issue of “Britishness”


which can be one of the most confusing terms, for there are not a few who say
“England” when they mean “Great Britain,” and vice versa. Moreover, “Britain” is
not equivalent to “Great Britain” since the latter includes England, Scotland and
Wales, nor is it the “United Kingdom,” which is Great Britain plus Northern
Ireland. It should be added that Great Britain has growing ethnic minorities and
clusters of immigrants, due to its imperial past (Giddens, 1998: 159–160). Its
ethnic and cultural diversity is an obstacle to reshaping an all-encompassing
national identity but not an insurmountable barrier, because it is an integral part
of the meaning of the United Kingdom as a cosmopolitan nation.

9
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

But there is something else which is very important: when it comes to


England, many of its people know and claim themselves to be Anglo-Saxons.
This is crucial because, in addition to the vigorous debate about the role and
effect of the Norman Conquest, it has a decisive effect on the periodization of
the administrative history of the island. This important point includes such
prominent figures as Rudolf Gneist, who in one of his most famous books
begins by stating that it can be said that the political history of England begins
around 800, due to the extensive migration flows in Europe (Gneist, 1892: 1).
The island had been invaded and settled by Angles, Saxons and Jutes
migrating from the forests of Germania to which Montesquieu referred. The
epigraph of this book thus serves its purpose well, because the choice of that
date omitted a vast prior history, both British and Roman. As we will see later,
these are much more important than Gneist thought, or George Thomas Reid
(Reid, 1913: 5) who calls for a return to the practices and models of Anglo
Saxon times in the first book on the administrative history of England. This view
is shared by the most prominent administrative scholar in Britain, E.N. Gladden,
for whom the birth of the civil service lies in the same period (Gladden, 1967:
18).

Whether it is prejudice or national conviction, the fact is that Great Britain


has an administrative culture which we propose to examine. However, in doing
so, we will not neglect the contributions from other times and other civilizations
that have had a presence on the island since ancient times and even to the
present. Many of the great figures of Western civilization, such as Thomas
Hobbes and John Stuart Mill, were English. Many others, although born
elsewhere, are thought of as English. John Knox (1510–1572), a leader of the
Protestant Reformation and founder of Presbyterianism, was born in Scotland.
Likewise, Adam Smith (1723–1790), the father of political economy; Arthur
Ignatius Conan Doyle (1859–1930), the creator of fictional detective Sherlock
Holmes; noted philosopher David Hume (1711–1776); and Thomas Carlyle
(1795–1881), critic and author of a seminal book about heroes and heroism
were born in Scotland. Former prime ministers Anthony Charles Lynton “Tony”
Blair and Gordon Brown were also born in Scotland. Arthur Wellesley, Duke of
Wellington (1769–1852), the victor of the Battle of Waterloo, was born in
Ireland, as was Edmund Burke (1729–1797), the great reformer and greatest
enemy of the French Revolution; and George Bernard Shaw (1856–1950),
awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1925. All of these illustrious men were
British, and shared the culture which here, examined from the administrative
angle, is the subject of this book.

Britain’s combination of unity and diversity is a factor that confuses and


baffles the researcher, for the muddle exists, as Ernest Barker wrote, not only in
the political area, but also in social institutions. Sometimes our organizations or
social groupings cover the whole of the British nation, other times they belong
only to one of its nationalities, and in other cases they are mixed and constitute
unique situations in neighboring countries. The trade unions generally have
members in the whole country and the whole United Kingdom. The churches
are sometimes general and other times particular, but there are some that are
part of the general Church, and simultaneously in a particular Church. The
Anglican Church, for example, is somewhat unique to all Great Britain, but it
also exists separately in four different directions: the Church of England,

10
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

established in England; the former Church in Wales among the Welsh; the
Episcopal Church of Scotland among the Scots; and the former Church of
Ireland (Ireland in general, not just Northern Ireland) among the Irish. Great
Britain is truly a complicated country (Barker, 1944: 14–15).

Thus, we refer in this book to Great Britain, except when we clearly


indicate that we are speaking of England or another particular British country.

11
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

III

One of the most telling manifestations of the administrative culture of a


country is how its ideas are converted into principles to be transmitted. This
mechanism facilitates the processes of adoption and adaptation of one nation’s
administrative institutions to another, since it determines the scope of their
applicability when their existential locus changes.
In public administration the creation of ideas emerges from the very
occupation of public servants, who, having become practitioners of a field of
knowledge, establish principles which they then make an effort to transmit.
Such is the case of the great administrators of history such as Sextus Justus
Frontinus, Water Commissioner of the aqueducts of Rome and governor of
Britain; Narses, Grand Chamberlain of the Byzantine emperor and conqueror of
Italy, and Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot, Controller-General of Finances of Louis
XVI. It occurs in this manner because these ideas are often an expression of
their times, while at the same time they influence their course (Meinecke, 1998:
20–23).

To generate principles it is necessary that the officials whose ideas led


them should feel inspired to develop their theoretical analysis. Public
administrators, the epitome of the practical man, have left many records of their
work, including many writings, almost all of these stemming from their activities,
but little theoretical reflection. In public administration, ideas do not only deal
with theoretical concepts and their clarification over the course of time, but
comprehend the main actors of each era within it, being influenced and
influential in their time.

Ideas emerge from the activity of the public administrator, because their
originator is advancing and developing while carrying out his work. Authorship
and writing proceed at the same time when the author, in the course of his own
development, conceives the idea emerging from his pen. It often happens that
statesmen do not learn anything new from what they know a ruler did, because
the novelty of an idea stems from what is communicated. Only by their
conception as a principle, in fact, is what lends historical trends their penetrative
force that raises them to what we can call an “idea” (Meinecke, 1998: 39).

Thus the concept of public administration underwent a process of


increasing exposure and historical emergence. Certainly, the author develops
while producing his work, during the process of shaping the idea. Charles-Jean
Bonnin observed that although some longstanding laws and regulations
assumed a public administration endowed with its own elements, divisions and
laws; that is, a relatively differentiated specific institution within the government,
no progress was made in codifying it, and the shape, scope and limits that had
been developed were soon forgotten (Bonnin, 1808: 27). That is, although the
idea of public administration had existed in embryonic form since ancient times,
it had not solidified into a precise concept, neither of its nature, nor its functions,
nor its relationships with the government and the courts, nor its connections
with those under its administration. In ancient times, the state ran the
administration but its efforts in that respect were anonymous and incognito,

12
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

since administrative work was indistinguishable from the state’s other functions.
As Bonnin claims, it never crossed the mind of any legislators of any peoples
that administration might have its own laws, forms, or fixed and invariable rules.

This vital principle of the idea in public administration is unique. No one is


unaware of the weight of continuity in public administration, which strives to
pursue and conclude the matters it deals with, to continue and conclude again.
This has given rise to a considerable portion of administrative thinking: as can
be observed in many writings, the administrative idea takes its impetus from a
prior idea, and so on back along a chain whose beginning is often not known;
its end even less. The crux here is to find the origin of the idea, which often first
arises in a time of crisis. As Juan Beneyto noted, the main data point that the
historian of public administration seeks, to write “with black ink on that white
stone” that marks the beginning of a period, is the awareness of a crisis
(Beneyto, 1958: 28). There have been not a few periods in history whose origin
can be distinguished by a change in the form of public administration, whether
by its failure or because of belief in its future success.

A crisis points to the fact that a government makes decisions in situations


marked by urgency. Thus choices are made in a situation in which the
government faces an immediate problem, and based on the situation facing it,
calculates the probable consequences of each possible course of action. In
fact, the word “decision,” which in Greek is krisis (from the verb krinein: to
separate, decide, judge), carries the meaning of urgency, imperative need, and
crisis (Majone, 1992: 346-349). Crises shape the evolution of public
administration which, flowing in the direction it is pushed by ideas, produces
new institutions which coexist with the old surviving ones after a period of crisis;
that is, sifted through a sieve that separates the useful from what is damaging,
burdensome and superfluous. Crisis, in fact, derives from sifting (VillarPalasi,
1952: 129–130).

13
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

Part One
THE BRITISH PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

14
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

Chapter 1

THE BRITISH CULTURE

The diversity of administrative cultures between countries is known


among academics but this awareness does not date very far back. Previously
not only was the innate superiority of Western culture taken for granted, but it
was believed that less developed countries must adopt the systems of
developed countries if they were to prosper. In the past, administrative culture,
like political theory, was observed by academics in the field only partially and
incompletely, if not wholly by traditional methods enshrined in custom. For
example, Eastern political thought evoked an atmosphere of exoticism and
rarity, and of curiosity, since it amazed them or left them uncomprehending.
Sometimes they also observed it with prejudice and contempt, as seen in the
work of Paul Janet, for example, who formed the opinion that Hindu lacked the
concept of state, nation or law; and that a fervent Hindu belief in heaven caused
them to judge real life as so hopeless that the best thing was to rapidly leave it
(Janet, 1947: I, 67). Following these lines, one could even believe that Eastern
political thought is barbaric and lacking in creativity.

D. Mackenzie wished to test this prejudice by analyzing the


epistemological position of the political scientist W. W. Willoughby, famous for
his work on the state and Prussian government (although Mackenzie
erroneously attributed these views to his brother W. F. Willoughby, with whom
he confused him) (Mackenzie, 1965, 32). W. W. Willoughby claimed that
Orientals, in spite of having organized their political life earlier than the ancient
Greeks, were unable to generalize their political ideas as an ordered, complete
system worthy of being called political philosophy (Willoughby, W.W., 1903:
13.). As an aside, it is worth noting that the W. W. Willoughby thought in a
similar way to his brother. As treasurer and secretary of Puerto Rico he had no
qualms whatsoever in declaring that the American “Army of Deliverance” that
occupied the island in mid-1898 not only was received as a band of heroes, but
as the beachhead of a political and administrative reform highly desired by the
islanders, who would bring American institutions to Puerto Rico. This passage
from the work of W.F. Willoughby is an emblematic specimen of colonial
mentality, one of the best examples of the way that the metropolis looked upon
the “backward peoples” (Willoughby, W.F., 1909: 409). The outdated Spanish
modes of colonial administration, he believed, would be replaced by American
Modernity.

Cultural Diversity in Administration

The reality is, of course, otherwise, and more recently Western social
scientists have placed great emphasis on the value of Eastern studies on
politics and administration. Particularly notable is their acknowledgment of the
pre-existence of institutions in Eastern countries following independence, since
it has been concluded that the colonial implantation of the concept of the state
and its administration failed because they ignored the actual conditions of these

15
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

countries. When a public administration model was implemented according to


French and German models, it eventually had to adjust, rather, to the prevailing
local situation (Heady, 1966). The same result came out of the colonial strategy
for establishing a civil service based on these models, more oriented to the
maintenance of law and order, which shaped the development of the country
(Pye, 1966). However, the survival of the colonialist bias led John Stuart Mill to
conclude from the fate of the East India Company a theory of how a civilized
country would rule a “semi-barbaric” people and then “die” (Mill, 1858: 270). The
wrongness of such an appraisal became abundantly clear in India when it was
discovered that many of the country’s ancient administrative institutions were
functioning better than those designed under Western models imported by
metropolitan governments. It was found, in fact, that this was due not only to the
positive relationship between social conditions and established administrative
feasibility, but the preservation of national and local values (Riggs, 1961: 3–14).
Asian – and African – countries that received technical assistance during the
post-war period with a view to improving their public administrations suffered
from the clash between two implementation models: one native, which was
called substantive administration; and the other external, called formal
administration.

These observations were dramatically substantiated in India in particular,


where the eminent administrativist Paul Appleby, serving as a consultant to the
Ford Foundation, found that his administration in India was as good as the
American administration (Appleby, 1953: 1), a discovery that inspired one of his
major works (Appleby, 1961). What is most notable is that Asian countries
conceived highly developed public administrations at a time when Europe was
still in a state of barbarism. Indeed, administrative development originally
shifted from East to West, and it was not until much later, perhaps at the
beginning of the nineteenth century, that it began to return from the West to the
East. The last stage of this process began in the 1960s, when the theory of
administration for development first appeared. This theory is predicated on the
diversity of administrative culture, based not on a diametric opposition between
the primitive and the civilized, but between underdevelopment and
development. The latter category replaces the concept of civilization:
development lies in the increased ability of human society to shape its physical,
human and cultural environment (Riggs, 1970: 73–74). Administration for
development means organized efforts, by means of programs or projects, to
achieve development goals.

Analogous to the forging of Western “superiority,” the so-called “Anglo


Saxon peoples” have tried to ennoble their industrial successes and military
conquests, praising their ethnicity for what they view as its natural or
providential supremacy. Yet this has been the custom of all winners, in all ages,
because they feel the need to “intellectually worship their material triumphs”
(Fouillee, 1903: 515–516). This can be contrasted with another diverse cultural
world, that composed of the so-called “neo-Latin peoples;” that is, the nations of
Spain, Portugal, Italy, France and Latin America, which distinguish themselves
by their religious traditions and linguistic kinship, and other similarities based on
classical culture and a love for the arts. The neo-Latins suffer the burden of the
black legend of their decline; that is, the claim that the peoples of the Romance

16
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

languages share the common fate of having an inferior mission compared to the
higher calling that the Anglo-Saxons attribute to themselves.

Neo-Latins and Anglo-Saxons


Since the authentic Latin people was the ancient Roman nation, the
supposed inferiority of the neo-Latin “race” must be sought in its defects rather
than in its achievements of conquering, organizing and reforming the ancient
world. But such a search is unnecessary because it is difficult today to find the
”neo-Latin” element, biologically speaking. For example in France, any
remaining Latin vestiges are mostly only the language and some of its
traditions. The people of France are half Celtic, one quarter Germanic, and the
other quarter Latin (Fouillee, 1903: 516–517). In Spain, what dominates are the
Mediterranean peoples mixed with Celts and Germans, similar to France, but
with the order of the components reversed. Nor in Italy does the Latin element
dominate, but rather the Celtic-Slavic and Mediterranean. Thus the Latin
component is sparse, demographically speaking, in the neo-Latin peoples,
whether we consider the Italians, Spanish or French. What then of the Latin
American nations, also partly descended from the neo-Latin peoples of Europe?

Causes of the “decline” of the neo-latin peoples

The neo-Latin peoples are also burdened with a reputation of


degeneration over the centuries, but the truth is that all peoples incessantly
undergo renewal in the struggle against decline. In this sense, a population or a
culture is always young. The problem consists, rather, in understanding what
elements make it up at a given moment in its timeline. An unceasing selection
process operates among these elements, sometimes choosing the best,
sometimes the worst (Fouillee, 1903: 516–521). The former case leads to
progress; the latter to retrogression. One of the prides of the Anglo-Saxon
people is their success in colonizing. But it was the Romans were the first to do
so, and the French were also great settlers; for instance in Canada. What then
of the Spanish and the Portuguese, who colonized the New World long before
the English? And the Germans, who did not do so at all?

Another supposed justification of the “inferiority of the Latin nations” is


their decline due to “immobility.” This view, which has a biological basis, refers
to the law of adaptation of species to the environment they inhabit. That is,
when the physical environment changes, the species must also change or
disappear. Similarly, as the environment changes through the centuries with the
progress of civilization, science and the arts, each nation must adapt to the new
environment or disappear: its lack of flexibility and progressive adaptation is
due to immobility (Fouillee, 1903: 521). There would be, thus, a social
paleontology that enables specimens from past eras and backward peoples,
unable to adapt to new conditions, to persist. If this version of humanity’s
development were true, all empires would have collapsed from immobility, and
it would explain why the Latin nations are in decline: because they languish in
immobility. Yet if immobility is detrimental, so is excessive mobility. It is true that
some neo-Latin nations, such as Spain, are not noted for their flexibility but this

17
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

characterization does not fit Italy: when Italians receive education, they apply
what they have been taught and use it to prosper.

The French, if anything, have suffered rather from an excess of mobility


than from immobility. Were it not so, France could have been spared numerous
revolutions, wars, political changes, and fallen governments. About France, it
has been said that its own history, given the toxic effects of absolutism and
centralization, shows notable pathological traits that still resonate in the present
day (Röpke, 949: 66–73). From this it has been concluded that the claim that
France is the birthplace of modern revolutionary spirit and of socialism is
credible. It is also suggested that in such a situation, a people can react against
government excess in different ways. One is to accustom itself to subservience
and devotion to the state; perhaps a normal response, as occurs in the case of
the Germans. Moreover, Bakounine suggests that the Germans carry a passion
for order and discipline in their blood, which is the source of their state spirit
(Bakounine, 1967: 237). Another response is to expose themselves, as the
French do.

Finally, the neo-Latin decline has also been attributed to their religious
inferiority, a thesis which begins by making Catholicism a sort of common
property of the neo-Latin peoples. But this is at best relative, because there
Catholics in Belgium, Cologne, Aachen, on the banks of the Rhine, in Bavaria
and in Austria, just as there are in New York and many places more (Fouillee,
1903: 530, 534). In the political sphere, the Latin peoples have been attributed
a congenital quality of suffering voluntary submission to a single power; that is,
an innate need for government protection. In fact, it is not the neo-Latins, but
the Germans who have a reputation for submission and for carrying a passion
for order and discipline in their blood, from which arises their state spirit.
Germany is a serious and hardworking nation, endowed with education, order
and precision, thus superior to other nations when a fighting sprit is required.
But what mainly distinguishes the Germans is that they accept the terms of
compulsion freely and with conviction, because their freedom consists in being
willing to voluntarily submit to authority (Bakounine, 1967: 238). Finally, it is
alleged that there is no nation to rival the Germans in terms of “statist”
organization, which would explain why they seek their life and liberty in the
state.
But it was not the feeling of submission but that of equality that originated
in the nations with Latin culture, due mainly to the fact that Roman law and
institutions had a general and universal quality that erased individual
differences. This is characteristically visible in France, where the love of
uniformity has spread in the opposite way to the tendency among Anglo
Saxons. The purest representation of the universal search for equality is of the
rights of man and of the citizen (Sánchez Viamonte, 1956). But the tendency to
draw a distinction and differentiate hierarchically among occupations does
indeed persist among the Anglo-Saxons (Friedrich, 1946: 29). It is their division
of labor that holds the secret of British prosperity. Indeed, the cornerstone of
Adam Smith’s economic theory lies in the division oftasks (Adam, 1952). Its
politics is also based on the division of work, which puts a dynasty responsible
for the interests of the nation on one side and the House of Lords responsible
for maintaining government traditions on the other. Neither the monarch nor the

18
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

House of Lords nor the House of Commons is entrusted with the whole
government; each has its particular job for the general good. This political
division of the job of government is constitutionalism, one of the contributions of
Great Britain. It is a “divided powers” principle. Nor should we forget that the
division of powers in the modern state was first proposed by John Locke in his
book The Second Treatise of Civil Government (Locke, 1948), while
Montesquieu formulated his interpretation based on Locke’s thinking, given that
the chapter where he develops it is called “The constitution of England”
(Montesquieu, 1961). By dividing power, constitutionalism puts effective limits
on government action, because it consists of a system of norms that ensure fair
play, which holds the government responsible (Friedrich, 1946: 33–34).
Although constitutionalism is not the result of any “mysterious national
character,” it is true that the English-speaking peoples developed their political
traditions by moving steadily in the constitutional direction, thereby becoming
leaders of modern constitutionalism.

This is why the tendency to do everything, mix everything, level


everything and reduce everything to uniformity does not mean that the neo
Latins are intellectually inferior, but rather that their intellectual aptitudes are
diverse for the purpose of concentration. It explains why the Anglo-Saxon and
the German are better craftsmen, whereas the neo-Latin is the better artist. As
a consequence, it is not so prudent as some might think to pressure the Latin
nations to attempt a servile imitation of the Anglo-Saxon and Germanic peoples
(Fouillee, 1903: 534, 540). In fact, if we trace the course of the Anglo-Saxons in
America, it is undeniable that they had their greatest success there. But also it
is true that the Anglo-American is increasingly diverse and multicolored
according to the country, ethnic group and religion of the emigrant, although
they are still given the symbolic label of Anglo-Saxon even though the name is
no longer scientifically nor historically accurate.

Looking to the future


If we subscribe to the opinion of Fouillee, we can claim, in summary, that
there is nothing truly scientific in the theories that attribute native inferiority or
degeneracy to the so-called neo-Latins. The explanation must be sought,
rather, in the fact that the chorus glorifying the supposed Anglo-Saxon
superiority yields, in the end, to a barely-disguised fondness for utilitarianism; its
members feel the same admiration for industrialism as for commercialism,
which is nothing else than an admiration “to put it bluntly, for money” (Fouillee,
1903: 543). Nevertheless, this very obsession for money is not innate in the
Anglo-Saxon, but a neo-Latin gift. Actually, we must remember that no Anglo
Saxon ethnicity explains the Genoans and Venetians, so powerful in their day
on account of their bank – an Italian invention that would later bloom luxuriantly
in Anglo-Saxon soil – the promissory note, and the generalized use of credit,
barely known by the British of the day. They can also thank the Latins for the
concept management, derived from the Latin word manus (hand) and meaning
literally “maneuver.” The manager thus is the one who organizes maneuvers;
holding reality in his hands, he makes the business run and operate
successfully under shifting conditions. One author explains that “management”
is from Latin, and in the Middle Ages took the form maneggiare in Italian,

19
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

meaning to maneuver, to direct. Lombardian and Genovese businessmen no


doubt transmitted the word at the same time they passed on their banking
techniques to the English businessmen of the time. This adoption of the term
could even have a symbolic value; “maneuver” evokes contact with facts and
the idea of evolution. The Venetians can also be credited with the first shipyards
on the island of Great Britain; several ports were built in the first half of the
sixteenth century, the shipyards of Deptford being particularly notable (Perpiña,
1965: 174).
In terms of geographic exploration, it must be noted that it was not Anglo
Saxons, either, but Portuguese who rounded the Cape of Good Hope and
opened the route to the Indies for the British (Fouillée, 1903: 545).
In consequence, the admirers of the Anglo-Saxons are mistaken to
condemn other peoples for their supposed inferiority or decline, because all
peoples have their value, their merits, and their strivings in the present and
hopes for the future. In fact, the future is as uncertain for the Anglo-Saxons as
for the neo-Latins, for no people can flatter itself that it is the repository of virtue,
nor of perpetual power. No single nation can boast of eternal primacy, nor is
any nation inevitably doomed to fatal decline. There is room for every nation in
the human family, because not a one of them is predestined to decline on
account of its nature or ethnicity. History shows that scientific, social, intellectual
and moral factors win out, by means of the progress of modern civilizations,
over ethnic, geographic and climate factors. As Fouillee pointed out, the future
does not belong only to the Anglo-Saxons, nor the Germans, the Greeks, or the
Latins, but rather to the peoples who are the wisest, the most industrious, and
the most moral (Fouillee, 1903: 546).

But who are the Anglo-Saxons?

20
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

Germanic Peoples in Britannia

Before undertaking a study of the Anglo-Saxon people, it is necessary to


examine the history of the Romans in Britannia: the history of that nation – as
well as that of modern Great Britain – is linked to the world they found. The
Roman presence in Britannia was far from fleeting; it lasted nearly 400 years
(43–440 C.E.) and left footprints that have persisted into the present day. For
the Romans, Britannia was an El Dorado before the Conquest, as distant from
the Italian ecumene as Siberia (Birley, 1964: 154–155). The Romanization of
Britannia, like that of other provinces of the empire, was mainly oriented to
establishing a Roman government within the borders of the territory held by the
Romans. Urbanization played an important role, both in demographic
appropriation, and in promoting the organization of public life. The cities served
in large measure to support road building and the establishment of a postal
service, while both supported urban development.

Roman Britannia

Before the Roman conquest, Britannia had no cities or towns, except for
Celtic villages where the local people lived (Bennett, 1988: 7). Rome pulled
Britannia out of its social backwater and changed it from a tribal to an urban
society. If by civilization we understand the transition from an agricultural
existence to an urban society, Rome civilized Britannia, giving her her first cities
(Bagby, 1952: 84). This was how Colchester (Camuludunum or Colonia Claudis
Victrecinsis) was founded, as well as York, Lincoln (Lindum) and Gloucester
(Glevun), as well as London (Londinium). The latter, the capital of Britannia,
began as the seat of one of the four provinces of Britannia (Maxima
Caesariensis), while Cirencer was the capital of Britannia Prima, York of
Britannia Secunda and Carlisle the capital of Velentia. That is, Rome effected
the first territorial division of the island, and its first municipal organization.
Colchester, Lincoln and Gloucester, founded as colonies (coloniae), were
populated by Roman civilians, as well as by licensed veteran soldiers, while the
other towns (civitetes) were occupied by the Britons as in their traditional
settlements, although the Roman invasion caused them to resettle and change
their distribution. Once the town had become a city, it became a supply port, or
its Romanized residents acquired citizenship (Salway, 1984: 23). Military
demobilization was a source of urban development for Lincoln and Gloucester,
whose population was augmented by veterans of the Ninth and Second
Legions, as well as their families and servants (Birley, 1964: 22, 61). All the
Roman cities of Britannia were doubly new because, being located in previously
unsettled country, they were not built on top of existing construction, and each
of them was situated for specific purposes. In other words, they emerged from a
general country-wide urban development plan. For this reason, they must be
distinguished from military forts and sites, which are generally considered as the
main cities (Morris, 2005: 6).

Colchester and London are particularly notable among the cities of


Roman Britain. Modern-day Great Britain is well-supplied with cities; that is, it

21
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

has an active urban life. Colchester is an important contributor to the history of


why this is so, for it was the place where the urbanization of the country began.
As the Romans founded cities in order to ensure their control of the territory,
exploit natural resources and establish civilization, they caused the Britons to
adopt urban life, and by extension, the government and culture of the invaders
(Crummy, 1997: 5–7). Thus it was the cities that were the typical expression of
this civilization, that with the passing of time caused the line between the
invaders and the invaded to blur, giving way to a British-Roman society.
Colchester was undoubtedly the first and most important civil seat of society in
Britannia, and the first capital of the province. Since then, public utilities,
commerce and recreation for the residents of the city developed as a surrogate
for urban life. Colchester was thus the seed from which sprouted education,
technological innovation and social progress.

John Morris claims that “London is a Roman city.” It was founded by the
Roman government to serve a variety of purposes, for it was established
expressly for this reason: what brought the city into being was the government
and administration of Britannia. Being located in a potentially troublesome
territory, the choice of the site of the city was geopolitical; it must be a natural
center that connected with the rest of the territory in order to govern it and
stimulate its economic activity. And the choice was astute, because of the many
great cities founded by Rome, London stands out among them. It was in
London that the overall government of Britannia was installed, where all the
main roads carrying the imperial mail set out from, and where the fiscal, judicial
and administrative offices were located. The history of London is thus not the
biography of just any British city, but the history of the government and
economy of Britannia (Morris, 2005: 6–7). Rome also built Paris, Cologne,
Vienna and Belgrade, but none of them grew as London did, nor were any of
them such a dominant political center from the time of their foundation, as
London’s history from its beginning to the present day has shown. This
important fact is due to the location of the capital of Britannia having been
chosen deliberately.

Rome also established the municipal government: each city was


governed by a Senate whose elected members (100 decurions) appointed the
magistrates annually from among its members, the duoviri, to preside over the
administration of justice and other functions. They also appointed the councilors
whose duty was to oversee public works, payment of taxes, and spending by
the state treasury. The quaestors served as secretaries of the Senate (Morris,
2005: 22–24). Representatives from the cities in each province made up a
provincial council. The advance of urban life spilled over into the countryside:
farming on a large scale arrived with the Romans, as did commerce, money
coining and manufacturing. Rome organized a complex economy in Britannia.
Together Colchester, Saint Albans (Verulaminium) and London had a total
population of 70 thousand, although London in its heyday had only 45 thousand
(Bennett, 1988: 11).
Each city was built on a master plan, mainly because its construction not
only implied the achievement of Roman citizenship, but because its founding
was also a deliberate state policy. There were planned urban areas in the
streets, and in the public squares and buildings, such as the city center (forum)

22
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

that served as the core of public life (basilica) and the municipal government.
Planning included the construction and management of public utilities, mainly
the drinking water supply and sewage. The first city of Britannia, Colchester,
and the first capital reached a population of three thousand after being
populated by the influx of demobilized veterans (Bennett, 1988: 59, 72–73).
Rome can be credited with the original urbanization of Great Britain. As a
consequence of municipal life, Rome operated the first public utilities. In
addition to the water and sewage mentioned above, the Romans built baths and
aqueducts, as well as theaters – in Saint Albans and Canterbury – and a
racetrack in Lincoln.

Rome left a vast material heritage in Britannia, but also an intellectual


heritage, mainly through its language. Although it was replaced by the Saxon
language (which itself absorbed some Latin words, such as “street” from strata),
Latin remained alive mainly in the educated classes (Bennett, 1988: 72–73,
169). Rome left Britain King Arthur and his legend, perhaps Ambrosio Aurelio or
a Romanized Britain who defended his land against attacks by the Anglo
Saxons. One of the early mentions of Ambrosio Aurelio was made by Gildas
(circa 494–570) in his work On the Ruin of Britain – De Excidio Britanneae –
(Gildas, undated: 30). This valuable document was written around 570. All the
evidence points to the origin of King Arthur lying in a real person of that name
who held the position of Count of Britannia (Comes Britanniarum), the highest
position of Roman authority on the island together with the Duke of the Britons
(Dux Britanniarum), who guarded the territory north of Hadrian’s Wall. They
were also under the authority of the Counts of the Saxon Shore (Comes litoris
Saxonici) who guarded the south (Squire, 1994: 313-314). Taking into account
that after the departure of the Romans, their administrative and military
organization was inherited intact by the Britons, it is likely that that position was
assimilated to that of emperor, according to the Welsh custom.
While the British element of the society survived in reduced form, the
Roman part disappeared from the history of Britannia, but leaving three gifts as
a permanent legacy: London, Christianity, and the Roman roads. Although it is
not certain whether London was completely abandoned at the time of the
Anglo-Saxon conquest, it was soon reestablished as a modest city. By 700 it
had again become an important commercial center, within the standards of the
modest mercantile system of the time. It was the concentration of Roman roads
near the Thames that ensured London’s resurgence, for when the Romans left
Britannia, “they could not take their roads with them” (Trevelyan, 1976:51).
Welsh Christianity, although more recently imported to Britain, outlived
the older, more traditional institutions of the country. It left few archeological
traces on the Roman–British world, but this makes its survival among the
Welsh, as the only vestige of Roman civilization, all the more notable. One
reason was that when the Roman military and political regime left Britannia
forever, missionaries continued traveling to the Latinized continent to sustain
the spirits of the Welsh after the destruction of Hadrian’s Wall allowed the Picts
and the Scots to attack from north and west while the Saxons pressed in from
the East and South. If the Welsh were abandoned by the civilized world, they
were not neglected by the Christian missionaries.

23
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

The importance of the Roman roads is a bright chapter in the history of


Great Britain. Since the Romans left, no further roads as solid as theirs were
built again until the eighteenth century, when the toll road system was
constructed. Even throughout the Middle Ages, the stone roads built by the
Romans continued to cross an island sunk in discord and barbarism. It was the
Roman roads that facilitated the Saxon, Danish and Norman conquests, but
also worked to the benefit of the Saxon and Norman kings to unite England as a
state, and helped form the English nation. Thanks to the Roman legacy of their
roads, Great Britain had better royal roads in the time of the Saxon Heptarchy
than much later during the Stuart period. These roads contributed to the
defense of the island – while the Roman army was still there, it could never be
invaded. Twenty thousand soldiers and as many auxiliaries kept the marauders
at bay for nearly four centuries (Breeze, 2002: 14).

The Roman government of Britannia was no different from that installed


in other regions of the Roman Empire, as can be seen in the way they were
organized to rule the country, and in their scrupulous care. The government
was headed by a governor, who had broad discretionary power to appoint his
advisers and staff, in spite of imperial restrictions. However, he was normally
prohibited from appointing legionary legates and judges (iuridices). The prefect
of the fleet was directly subordinate to the orders of the governor as
commander in chief of the army. He had authority over the legionary legates,
and occasionally also over the judge, as well as other officials responsible for
imparting justice and the government of the province in general, although it did
not extend to fiscal matters, these being reserved to the procurator augusti. The
governor was supported by an “office” (officium); that is, a staff of military and
civilian officials, which was headed by the cornicularius, who served as adjutant
(Birley, 2005: 10–11). There were three further officials, holding military
positions, the commentariensis, as well as civil officials; the secretaries,
speculatores; military police, beneficiarii, stractores, officials with permanent
positions, equisiones, singulares, and infantry and mounted guards, who served
in a supporting role as auxiliary regiments in the provinces. We must not forget
that two great figures, Agricola and Frontino, were governors of Britannia.

As in their other provinces, in Britannia the Romans did not spare effort
or resources to make the island government viable, setting up what can be
called government infrastructure; that is, the public mails (cursus publicus). As
famous as their aqueduct water system was, the cursus publicus was one of the
public services on an imperial scale most sought for its cascading effects, since
it involved not only the top-level government information system but a complex
network of public works that in Britannia meant not only constructing roads, but
also the “mansiones” (night quarters) and “mutationes” (relay stations) (Black
1995: 13). Thanks to the cursus publicus, a carriage could comfortably cover 25
kilometers or more in a day and its occupants enjoy suitable lodging. The
mansiones often became the seeds that gave birth to small towns that
multiplied throughout the island.

The unique development of Britannia in the Roman Empire is not trivial;


as recent research on the civilization left behind has shown, it is more than
mere military presence.

24
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

Germanic migration
Prior to their migration to Britannia, the Angles and the Saxons lived
along parts of the coast of what today are Denmark and Germany, and on both
sides of the mouth of the Elbe River. The differences in language and customs
between the two peoples were slight. Some historians think that the Anglo
Saxons were, in essence, a single people, while others maintain a distinction
between them (Breeze, 2002: 31). Both peoples settled in most parts of
Britannia, from the Forth to the far reaches of Cornwall, while the Jutes settled
in Kent and the Isle of Wight. The latter were a smaller tribe, related to the
Angles and Saxons, but more diverse. They came to Britannia directly from
Jutland, in northern Denmark, or perhaps from their more recent settlements in
Frisia and the lower Rhine.

Many of the invaders were farmers who sought soil richer than that of the
dunes, marshes and forests of the northern coast of Europe where they lived.
Others were fishermen, experienced in surviving sea storms and pirates – both
frequently encountered in the North Sea, although they, too, were raiders and
buccaneers. These peoples were accustomed to loyally following their leaders
in marauding forays along the coasts between Norway and Frisia. But once
their conquests had been consolidated, the Anglo-Saxon women and children
migrated with their menfolk. The flow of population was so copious that their
lands of origin were virtually emptied. Even the royal family emigrated from the
Angle kingdom in Schleswig. It was then that the Danes spread from what is
today Swedish territory into modern Denmark which had been depopulated
following the emigration of its former inhabitants who crossed the sea to found a
new Engle-land.

In its time, this crossing made by thousands of families from southern


Denmark to England was unique for being the farthest such migration
undertaken by a people. It was this colonizing energy, combined with a
damaging destructiveness, that changed the civilization and racial stock of the
island more than any other Nordic invasion of the era. Neither the Goths nor the
Lombards in Italy nor the Franks in Gaul destroyed the urban life, the Christian
religion, nor the Latinized language of peoples they conquered. In contrast, in
Saxon Britannia, urban life, Christianity and the Latin-Celtic language
disappeared, along with the native settlements and the Roman administrative
boundaries (Trevelyan, 1976: 45). Urban life was profoundly changed by the
new locations of cities and towns, as well as their names, of which nine of every
ten now bore Saxon names. The Vandals were famous for destroying artworks,
hence the term “vandalism.” The word comes from their destructive action in
Rome, when they defaced the city’s works of art in particular, some years after
the Goths sacked the ancient imperial capital (Caldecot, 1959: 36). In this, they
were much less selective than the Anglo-Saxons, who destroyed equally the
beautifully and the ugly, the useful and the useless.

25
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

Destruction of the Roman Civilization

The pillage and destruction wreaked by the Anglo-Saxons was especially


visible in urban areas, as they destroyed cities and villages on a wide scale and
almost wholly. They did not live in cities nor did they have an inclination to
commerce –except for selling slaves abroad– but they lost their traditional
seafaring ways when they acquired land suitable for farming in the interior of
the island. The loss of their knowledge of sailing was so complete that when
Alfred the Great wanted to build ships for a navy, he applied to mercenaries in
Frisia. Their most civilized urge was to draw together into vast townships to
farm in an open field system of village agriculture. They built wooden houses
clustered around the lord’s manor house, also of wood, following the pattern
they had brought from across the sea (Trevelyan, 1976: 45–46). Even long after
the migration, they had developed no urban life, except for some urban growth
in London. The only economic service they rendered for Britannia was their
work as laborers and woodcutters who lived in large isolated houses or caves
close to the forests, with little care for anything happening outside their
properties. Their life did not vary from the time when Tacit observed in Germany
in the year 98 that its inhabitants did not live in cities, nor did they tolerate their
houses being clustered together, for they preferred to live apart and isolated.
Nor did they produce materials to construct their houses, but built rude,
unornamented dwellings of natural materials (Tacitus, 1942: 716.).
What is more, it is not known whether any Anglo-Saxons moved into any
abandoned Roman country villas. They found the idea of anyone living within
stone walls repugnant, except in places that were so strategically important that
they could not be permanently abandoned. This was the case in Chester, Bath
and Canterbury, which were again occupied, but it is not known whether Lincoln
or York were also resettled. What is known is that it was not until the Roman
roads and fords were joined that London and Cambridge began to recover their
status and civilization began to re-emerge; the rule of barbarism and the
passage of time could not wipe out all that Rome had built (Trevelyan, 1976:
45–46). Nevertheless, society had ground to a permanent halt in Silchester,
Wroxeter, Verulamium and many other cities. Modern excavations often
unearth Roman villas and cities under fields, meadows and marshes.
As one author explained, “an approximate estimate of the total mileage in
Britain would be about 10,000 miles (16,000 km), based on 7,400 miles (11,900
km) of known roads and perhaps another 2,000 miles (3,000 km) still to be
found. This was achieved during the first century of the occupation and one mile
of road produced on average in about three to four days constantly for one
hundred years is a superb record by any standards” (Bagshawe, 1990: 7). The
English mile was inherited from the Romans –the milia passum, or one
thousand steps. The Roman road network criss-crossing all of Britannia, which
included two distinct environments; the civil (domini), and the military (militiae),
where there were no towns or villages, and Romanization was declining. The
extension of the system to commerce and agriculture brought the unit of
measurement into general use. Northward, Romanization of the civil zone
spread 50 miles beyond the present-day city of York; westward to the Welsh
border at Wroxeter, southward to Exeter, and eastward to Colchester

26
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

(Haverfield, 2007: 10). The destruction of the roads was deliberate and
complete, as was the elimination of the Roman names. Gradually, the paving
stones of the unmaintained roads sunk, and later the roads were dismantled to
quarry the materials when the Medieval English, having used up much of their
lumber, began to build houses of stone. Having degenerated into bridle paths,
the highways eventually disappeared under marshes and fields. Recently some
sections have been repaired and modernized, and “the motor car now shoots
along the path of the legions” (Trevelyan, 1976: 52). Other vestiges of the
Roman roads are still walked by English trekkers, although these paths set out
from nowhere and end up nowhere, “walking miles and miles” through the
English countryside. Many of these roads are not identified so much by their
visibility as by exploration of the ground and by air, enabling them to be
rediscovered.

One of the most grievous consequences of the Anglo-Saxon conquest


was that it shattered the peace and unity of ancient Roman Britain. During the
fifth and sixth century, Britannia became a chaotic panorama of warring tribes
and kingdoms that fought each other and within their own families. Public and
private warfare was more the rule than the exception (Trevelyan, 1976: 48).

Romano-British civilization suffered heavy damage as it disintegrated


under pressure from two barbarian fronts; the Anglo-Saxon conquest and the
return of the Britons. The regions where Roman culture had blossomed were
destroyed by the waves of invaders. The civilized Britons took refuge in the
Welsh mountains and the Cornish marshes, but deprived of their cities and their
governments, they were surrounded by their less civilized Celtic brothers, and it
was not long before they lost the arts and customs that had enabled them to
stand above the crude Saxons (Trevelyan, 1976: 49). The first product of the
conquest was that the arts, science and knowledge Rome had lavished on
Britannia were forgotten. At the same time, in spite of the flow of migration from
Germany, the population and farmland on the island were decreasing sharply.
This meant that due to demographic movements, the Anglo-Saxons, who lived
in the lowlands, began to develop a civilization superior to that of the Welsh
highlanders. With the passage of time, this produced a separation between the
barbarian Celt and the civilized Saxon. The shift of the island’s center of wealth
was partly due to the character of the Britons, for if they had bowed in
submission to the Romans, it was because of the superiority of that civilization,
but they found the Saxons unacceptable as lords. Hence, their decision to
either die fighting or escape across the sea to the new Britannia in Armorica in
Gaul, or take refuge among the wild peaks of Wales.

With their work of destruction, the Anglo-Saxons mortgaged their present


and erased their future. Once the Roman civilization, which could have driven
progress, was devastated, the Anglo-Saxons lagged behind while other nations
advanced. With the passage of time, while their collective strength dissipated,
the Anglo-Saxons were unable to develop new strengths that would drive them
forward. This fact, one of the mostsurprising in history, shaped one of the most
poignant eras of retrograde progress.

27
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

Halting National Unity

Their predatory behavior worked against the Anglo-Saxons themselves,


since their isolated, rural way of life did not contribute to the development of a
sense of nationhood. It was the kings and bishops who made an effort to inspire
them with national, or at least provincial patriotism, but they met with little
success. The dominance of a leader depended on the prestige he won on the
battlefield, but it soon dissipated after victory because the necessary
organization to permanently subdue distant provinces was absent (Trevelyan,
1976: 70). Temporary winners did not have the fortresses and garrisons to do
so, nor did they have permanent armies stationed in the subjugated territories.
This was the reason why the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms endemically lacked a
system to carry out government and administration: Northumbria, distant, in
decline and detached by local disputes, was easy prey for the Danish invaders.
Mercia, which dominated from 757 to 796, was subdued by Wessex. When
struck by a concerted foreign invasion, the Anglo-Saxon kings were unable to
set aside their internal quarrels and ally themselves with the Nordics. They fell
one after another, having failed to make a consistent plan for national defense.

When Edward The Confessor died in 1066, the Anglo-Saxon people


were still poorly organized and lacking a sense of nationhood. The Norman
invaders, in contrast, had a well-trained and equipped army of more than twelve
thousand men. When England was divided among the conquerors, many of
whom came after Hastings, the total number of feudal knights was no more
than five thousand. That a country of a million and a half could be subjugated
by such a small contingent confirms the political and military backwardness of
the Anglo-Saxon system compared to the Norman regime. As a consequence,
England’s geopolitical focus changed forever after the conquest. Moreover, it
was the dramatic culmination of a long contest between Scandinavia and Latin
Europe for England (Trevelyan, 1976: 133–104). From then on, England looked
to the continent, but without ever considering itself fully European.

War, invasion and bloodshed, normal in the England of the time, left a
long-lasting stamp on Anglo-Saxon life. But no more is known about the era,
because the Anglo-Saxon period disappeared from the landscape; their wooden
houses left no traces nor lasting traditions. Today, it is traces of the Romans,
more distant in time, that are more visible than those of the people who
destroyed a considerable part of their work. In the absence of written records,
the history of the Anglo-Saxon world was woven into a cloth more mythological
than historical, for the silence of the past is unrelenting. Certainly there are no
authentic accounts of the Anglo-Saxon conquest; the most important page of
our national annals is blank, George Trevelyan has concluded (Trevelyan,
1976: 83–84). Thus the leading figures of this lost period of English history -
such as Arthur– could be real or fictional.

To date, archaeology and history have only revealed the general outlines
of the struggle that destroyed Roman Britannia and eventually delivered the
island to the modern English.

28
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

The delay in developing national unity is, in spite of everything, a


paradox because the first mention of the idea of a people that was starting to
shape itself came very early. Of particular note is Bede (circa 673-735), a
Benedictine monk who was the first to use the term “our people.” Although in
his time there was no single Anglo-Saxon domain, but rather a land where
division and discord reigned, he observed an English people as a social entity
and conceived it as the historical configuration of his most important work
(Forbids, 1999: IX, XX). So it was that if first he distinguished between the
Angles and the Saxons and the two together, later he tended to group them
under a single name; Anglos. In any case, his work has the enormous merit of
being the first attempt to write a national history, covering the fifth century to the
first half of the eighth, even though that was not his goal.

29
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

Chapter 2

THE CHARACTER OF THE BRITISH PEOPLE

A proper understanding of the British people within their history should


start by understanding the place of their country in the world. The country
occupies a relatively small island and part of another. The United Kingdom
(England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) measures 313 thousand km2.
But as Great Britain (without Northern Ireland), it is smaller, only 230 thousand;
that is, 42% of the total area of France. In short, it covers 0.2% of the Earth's
land area.

Insularity and Territoriality

However, this perspective gives only a partial view, for we should not
forget the Commonwealth of Nations, the British-influenced territory that
occupies more than a quarter of the world. Thus, from the geographical point of
view, it is not only from its metropolitan territory properly speaking from which
England obtains its greatness; other sources must also be considered
(Siegfried, 1950: 79–80). Some time ago, André Siegfried masterfully
characterized the influence the English people have had on the world: the 45
million men living in the rock have had a decisive effect on the world; they have
contributed more than any other people to the development of Western
civilization. Siegfried points out clearly what is so splendid about the
construction of a great power seated on such a narrow territorial base. But at
the same time as we see its greatness, we also see its fragility. For this nation
to construct its Empire and to maintain it for centuries, the existence of a truly
exceptional set of qualities can be inferred.
As noted by another author, the confusing origins of the British nation
sprung from an isolated, cold, rainy riverine island, freed of its ice cap, gradually
populated by migratory waves of people from the continent with a colonizing
spirit, some as pioneers and others as refugees from oppression (Nicholson,
1967: 5). These migrations brought with them four elements that dominate the
subsequent history of the island: commerce with the continent, budding
ideologies, inclusive religions, and conflicts triggered by the island’s need to
protect itself from new invasions. Thus the fact of its island home had a
determining influence on the destiny and spirit of the English people: reduced to
their essence, they were condensed by a swifter and more complete fusion of
their elements, resulting in a unique, homogenous character. But at the same
time, the isolation of the island hindered communication with the outside which
would have resulted in more social exchange, although the English did voyage
to the continent to try to conquer territory or to trade (Fouillee, 1903: 194–197).
However, something of the ancient Britons’ strong fraternal instinct and
fondness for society and organizations was inherited by the English. Moreover,
the island environment that confined the English also promoted their unity and

30
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

persistence; it forced them to resolve their quarrels by themselves and swiftly


achieve a balanced society. As he explains, with their destiny enclosed inside
much more solid limits, how could their character not more promptly have
become unified and homogeneous?

The conclusion that can be drawn is that the destiny of the British nation
has been shaped essentially by isolation as a result of insularity. But separation
did not protect the island from repeated invasions. It is just a little morethan a
thousand years that the North Sea and the English Channel have been able to
preserve England from new incursions; ethnic contact between the English
people and the nations of the continent ceased after 1066. A number of French,
German and Jewish refugees emigrated to the island from the seventeenth to
the nineteenth centuries, but as individuals, not as population migrations. The
British thus have always had trouble considering themselves as Europeans
(Siegfried, 1950: 83–84, 87). We should not fail to note their ethnic youth in
contrast, for example, with the French, because the Latins have been a societal
group for more than two thousand years. There is however a contradiction
between insularity and the internationalism of British trade as its true destiny, a
contradiction that represents its personality. As England by its very
temperament is the most insular country in the world, its interests and
relationships have forced it to make its living from international trade, which
means that every English person embodies this contradiction.
In fact, it is thought that globalization, a process that has encountered
strong national resistance, has come up against one of the most solid defenses
in Great Britain. We must not forget that England led a crusade well into the
1950s whose thesis was that the European Common Market would fail because
it was believed at the time that markets were resistant to the European
temperament and its nationalisms. This led to the United Kingdom’s refusal to
join the Continent in signing the Common Market Treaty. It was the cultural
English insularity that brought about this decision; as one author noted, the
English have not been considered part of Europe because of the separation
between the British Isles and the continent. The English Channel separates the
islands sufficiently from Europe, while a more distant continent has offered it a
sense of North Atlantic community in spite of the thousands of kilometers that
separate them (Rose, 1964: 7). The United States and Canada make a sort of
North Atlantic community, fuzzily and imprecisely defined, with England,

One of the particularly English features that characterize the nation is its
historical relationship with the French, and vice versa. André Siegfried said that
when he crossed the English Channel and came to London, he had the
impression of having landed on another planet. Later, having become
accustomed to the English environment, he no longer understood his own
country. While Siegfried eventually came to be able to understand both the
English and the French points of view, he never managed to do both
simultaneously. From this, he was able to conclude that he knew no peoples
more mutually impenetrable. The English Channel, dividing the port of Dover
from the French coast, is metaphorically as deep and wide as an ocean.
Siegfried claims the right to make such judgments, having known the island of
Great Britain since 1882, when he visited as a child, and because he returned
to it many times (Siegfried, 1932: 8).

31
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

Even to this day, many nations owe the fact of their existence mainly to
their antagonism against other countries. Indeed, Anglican England was
conceived by its hostility to Catholic France, as observed by Johann Gottlieb
Fichte, who explained that since ancient times, the belief has reigned that a
state consisting of an island (especially when other empires still did not have
natural borders separating them, nor could one speak of a balance of powers
between them) does not properly constitute an independent whole. Every such
independent state must have a foot firmly planted on the continent; islands can
only be considered an annex –by this logic, the British Isles belong to the terra
firma of France. Thus it was argued whether the lord of the mainland should
extend his domain to the islands or should the more powerful ruler of the
islands extend his sovereignty over the mainland. Both were attempted in turn.
The French princes took over England, the English kings seized France; the
latter maintain their claims even today, at least by means of their titles (Fichte,
1991: 124). To this was added, in the modern era, another not entirely natural
aspiration to supremacy in world trade and the colonial systems of both
empires, neither very natural. From this sprang the succession of wars that
raged from ancient times to today. And from this sprang the national hatred that
both peoples proffer so generously towards each other, all the more violent by
the fact that the two peoples were destined to be one.

This is because an identity with a strong cultural and political profile


implies few political and cultural limits, meaning that the number of social
adhesions are limited (McLuhan and Powers, 1989: 164). So if a country holds
one nationality and a plurality of cultures, there must be a balance between
them to avoid fragmentation and consequent dissolution. This is because the
unity afforded by the nation arises from a secular adaptation with historical
roots, which stimulated and consolidated a type of culture (Siegfried, 1950: 50–
52). The nation is, therefore, more social than political, because it is built on a
base more of family and individuals than on a state foundation.

But the English isolation and insularity could have been more radical.
Since France and England could have been a single country, because of the
Norman Conquest, it forever determined the direction of England’s politics and
culture. Geopolitically belonging to the Scandinavian countries, the land
adjacent to Europe during the Anglo-Saxon era, the British Isles were
threatened with remaining in isolation and apart from the great movements of
European life; that is, at risk of drowning in a countercurrent to the flow of
history. The union with Normandy turned England’s sights toward the continent
and plunged England into Europe’s politics, religious turmoil and cultural
influences. England, specifically, became a part of France and, thus entered
wholly into the world to which France belonged. As Charles Haskins points out,
England received from France its language, its literature and its art; its laws
became largely Frenchified; its institutions, almost completely feudal. This
connection with France was effected through Normandy, and the French
influence took a Norman form. All this was true especially in the particular
features that characterized the Norman government: English feudalism was a
Norman feudalism in which the barons were weak and the central government
strong, since it was the iron fist of the Norman reign that converted a weak,
straggling Anglo-Saxon state into the English nation. Being Normandized was
the price England paid for being Europeanized (Haskins, 1915: 82). This

32
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

explains why, both by its immediate result and the eventual outcome, the
conquest of England was the crowning event of Norman history.

33
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

The British

The island of Great Britain being a neighbor of Europe, this proximity has
shaped its ethnic composition through successive waves of immigration. A
series of invasions from the continent superimposed the Britons, Romans,
Anglo-Saxons and Normans onto the indigenous Iberians who were the original
inhabitants. Four main waves stand out; the first is the Britons, from the sixth
century B.C.E. to the arrival of Julius Caesar. These are a people who brought
a language and civilization to the island. The Roman conquest took place in 43
B.C.E., and lasted until the year 410 when the last legions left the island. It must
be emphasized that the effect of the Romans on Britain was not only the small
military occupation, but the seeds of Roman culture that were sown during
those four centuries, and whose traces, in spite of the Anglo-Saxon predation,
remained more visible than might have been expected.
While the Gaels of Scotland were never invaded by the Roman legions,
the south lived under the Roman order, and its effects can still be felt. The next
movement was the Germanic wave, which lasted from the fifth to the eleventh
century. Displacing the Britons westward, Anglo-Saxons and Scandinavians
occupied the eastern coast as far as the North Sea and penetrated into the
interior of the island. They would be the dominant element of the British
population, and thus the factor that would leave the deepest imprint (Siegfried,
1950: 81–82). From this arises the claim that the Englishman of today is
essentially an Anglo-Saxon. The last wave came with the Norman Conquest,
which in a certain way was a repeat of the Roman conquest because it too
consisted of a military occupation and political domination by a landed
aristocracy superimposed on the pre-existing population. The Normans brought
their French language, their political order, and a civilization, which, while it was
not Roman, was at least Romanized because these formerly barbarian
“detached Scandinavians” had evolved during their two-century sojourn in
France.

Many peoples successively invaded this small island land. The last
invasion, in 1066, was preceded by successive Nordic incursions. The
Normans, Flemish, Picards and Armorican Bretons, led by William the
Conqueror, were preceded by other northern invaders who renewed the
Germanization of the country. These were the Danes, Norwegians and Swedes,
whose incursions began in the eighth century. Scandinavians even colonized
the North and East of England (ceded by Alfred the Great with the Peace of
Wedmore in 878). Meanwhile, France colonized Normandy after it was
abandoned by Charles the Simple. The Danes eventually conquered and
annexed the whole of England in the early eleventh century (Petit-Dutaillis
1961: 128).

England owes its historical configuration to these successive invasions;


moreover two of them were massive intrusions that delivered the new
contingents of Britons and Anglo-Saxons to the island. The other two, carried
out by the Romans and Normans, were military conquests that brought England
mainly government, and the seeds sown in those remote times configured
today’s government. It should be noted that these waves were not mixed and

34
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

mingled; being successive, they occurred as a concatenated chain; they


overlapped or were rejected, but they did not blend, or at least not at first. They
resemble, rather, visible geological layers in which that which is Briton still can
be distinguished from the Anglo-Saxon. This has given rise in particular to an
idea the English have about themselves that is derived directly from this history,
still visible half a century ago in their social divisions, although the distinctions
may have blurred somewhat. But deep down, when the British mentality is
probed, there is a tendency to specify whether one is dealing with Britons,
Saxons or Normans. André Siegfried notes that the Briton is regarded as
eccentric and a little erratic, but as an individual, the most brilliant (Siegfried,
1950: 83). The Anglo-Saxon, the backbone of English society, seems to be the
most authentic and national representative of that Germanic facet of the British
character which we must consider. The Norman, the evolved and Romanized
Scandinavian, is the most aristocratic and most elegant; as Siegfried says, to
have Harcourt, Talbot or Courtney as a surname conveys a distinct advantage.
Long ago the country was ruled by the Saxons and Normans, but more recently
the democratic tide has “Britainized” it.
It must be noted that the affinity between individualism and the love of
social subordination was stronger in the Anglo-Saxon than in the German of his
time. This is because of the Norman Conquest, an event that altered the
individualism of the Anglo-Saxons and gave them a political spirit and a sense
of social solidarity with its own stamp. Because the Normans were few in
number, their collective action was mainly political; that is, it was an
expropriation on a grand scale through which the conquered lands were
distributed. The Anglo-Saxons and Normans were originally two superimposed
nations, one granted the upper hand, the other pressed into servitude (Fouillee,
1903: 196. This explains how the English aristocracy originated with the
Norman families, and was sustained and propagated with the recruitment of
distinguished men from administrative, military and cultural streams. It was this
aristocracy that created the political practices and engendered the country that
we know today.

The Normans were endowed with a spirit of domination and talent for
organization that did not weaken the bonds of subordination. The Anglo-Saxons
rallied together to stand up for their rights and try to resist the invader. This was
what gave rise to the English nation’s spirit of partnership that distinguished it
from the German people. Here, the solid, open organization blocked
individualism from forging a sense of isolation, dispersion or disassociation, with
the result that German unity progressed so slowly as to be only recently
accomplished. When the Normans imposed their practical, utilitarian concerns
on the Anglo-Saxons, the climate and geography of the island favored them.

The role of the Normans in England has, however, been a source of


controversy for some time. Edward Freeman and John Round, two great
historians of the Norman conquest –both of them Englishmen– held the two
opposing poles of the argument over its significance and meaning to the
present day. Freeman, who produced his great work between 1867 and 1879,
formed a theory in which Germanic tribes and traditions played the main role.
To him, the origin of the English nation, which culminated in the reign of Edward
the Confessor shortly before the Norman Conquest, lay in the Germanic tribes

35
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

and traditions that had populated the island since the fifth century (Warren
Hollister, 1969: 28–30). Indeed, by the time the Normans arrived in England,
the nation and its political system had consolidated on the base laid by the
Germanic peoples. So, from his point of view, the conquest is not important
whether as the beginning or the culmination of these events, but simply a major
point in their course; an illustrious chapter but not the first. At best, it represents
a shift in the process, but not one that changed its direction. It was such
decided opinions that prompted Haskins to say, as Freeman repeated countless
times, that the English of ancient times were as English the English of today.
(Haskins, 1915: 101). Round, in contrast, dismissed Freeman’s version of the
conquest as genealogical and antiquated, mainly because he considered it
unacceptable to credit the origin of the English nation to its ancestral Germanic
labyrinths. Rather, the conquest was a break interrupting the line of history,
which not only moved it from its previous route, but closed off that path forever.
In fact, most British institutions have their immediate origin in the conquest,
since its medium-term cause lies in the societies of Normandy and France, not
in the ancient Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. The history of the conquest is not a
continuous evolutionary thread, but the vision of an event he judges as
revolutionary.

To understand the direction and development of the British character, we


must remember that the Germanic race, of which the Anglo-Saxons are a
branch, is characterized by a contrast between realism and idealism, and in
their social relationships by individualism and a fondness for hierarchical
subordination (Fouillee, 1903: 197–207). The Anglo-Saxons had the same
tendencies as all the other Germanic peoples, but they were modified by the
Briton and Norman influences, as well as the conditions under which the nation
developed. Although prone to mysticism and idealism, the Britons were never
inclined to intellectual intensity to the point where it detracted from practical life.
The Norman influence, however, resulted in intelligent, firm minds grounded in
reason, little given to illusions and fancies, and a persevering, enterprising spirit
with an eye to “winning.” It is true that the realist inclination stood out, but not to
the extent that the idealist inclination should disappear altogether. Rather, their
domains were distributed; in practical matters and in the realm of pure
intelligence, the island has remained positivist. All these influences together
produced the final result of the British character, as it appears today in its
originality.

This succession of eras has produced a variety of opinions about the


importance and significance of each. Carlyle, for example, stressed the
importance of the Normans, ignoring the old Anglo-Saxon lineage. Tennyson,
considering the various Teutonic immigrations that followed the Roman
occupation, stated that his people were the Normans, Saxons and Danes,
ignoring the Britons who inhabited the island before them, but who make up a
considerable part of the composition of the country. It is true that many of the
Britons left, and remained separate in Wales and northern Scotland, and in
Ireland, but many more stayed and intermarried with the Germanic settlers
(Barker, 1944: 11).

The element carried by the Britons was not extinguished, unlike the Celts
in France, and was able to maintain a fundamental importance in the social and

36
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

political history of the country. Particularly important was the organization of


their rural communities, even in Anglo-Saxon times, but which persisted as an
important factor, and as the remote ancestor of the country’s political system
(Petit-Dutaillis 1961: 29–30). Even the Roman concept of civitas did not wipe
out the Briton spirit of rural cooperation, inhibiting the development of individual
property. The Anglo-Saxon invasions were demographically destructive to the
Britons, as a large number of them were displaced to Wales, Cornwall and
Armorica. However, given that many Britons remained in England, their fusion
with the conquerors assured the persistence of the Celtic element in village
communities.

Ernest Barker wondered whether the nation is an ethnicity. If he meant


physical races, distinguishing the races by physical differences – the shape of
the skull, of the face, color, height and appearance – then Barker accepts that it
can be claimed that a nation is not an ethnicity and that all nations (or most of
them) are ethnically mixed because of successive invasions and the
intermingling that followed them. Thus the British nation is an amalgam of the
various races or ethnic groups that swept across the island (Barker, 1944: 12–
13). Unlike the Germans and Scandinavians, the English in particular form a
nation that arose from what was ultimately an ethnic mix, with the Nordic portion
predominating, whatever its proportion may be (Trevelyan, 1976: 50). This
accounts for the noticeable difference between the modern Englishman and the
modern German or Scandinavian; the explanation for which lies in many
centuries of island life, as well as the social and political security that has
reigned since 1066, when the island began to defend itself effectively from any
and all invasions.

Thus the concept of nation means more than only England. There is an
English nation whose home is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, for the South and West of Ireland (Eire) became a separate
independent domain in 1922, although still within the British Commonwealth. It
is a nation which also includes Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland (Ulster).
The British nation is a “multinational nation” containing three different
nationalities: English, Scottish and Welsh (Barker, 1944: 13–13). Some of the
national languages other than English are spoken as a second language, but in
some cases as the only or first language, such as Welsh in Wales and Gaelic in
the Highlands of Scotland. Separate political institutions are preserved in some
of the nations; Northern Ireland has had its Parliament in Belfast since 1922,
but also continues to send its members to the House of Parliament in London.
Scotland, moreover, has its own courts and its own national Presbyterian
Church.

37
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

Politics
When it comes to English political life, individualism and the binding force
of association produced a reign of freedom that is one of the country’s main
claims to fame. But the regard in which freedom was held was not reverence for
the idea, but rather the fact that safeguarding individual and corporate interests
were personified equally. It was thus the barrier posed by the sea that made the
liberal regime possible, fully consistent with national interests. Next to its
constitutional freedoms and parliamentary system, the most significant
development in English history has been its colonial expansion as a result of
advances in industry and trade, which enabled the British to expand their
dominion to the point that the national spirit, which overran the limits of Great
Britain, made the English in particular give birth to the idea that men can build a
homeland anywhere in the world (Fouillee, 1903: 210–211). Finally, the third
main event is the triumph of Protestantism. This took place due to a number of
reasons, but the main factor is political, which explains why the Irish Celts
rejected the Reformation while the Welsh Celts embraced it. However, the
overall correspondence between Anglo-Saxon individualism and a religion
based mainly on the individual conscience must be acknowledged.
In the sphere of politics, Britain has solved problems that other nations
could not overcome. It has taught by example that freedom and authority are
not incompatible, and that the law can be obeyed without sacrificing personal
dignity. That is, freedom implies neither chaos nor tyranny (Siegfried, 1950: 92).
This is a different conception of what on the continent is called power in the
sense of Roman imperium. The government is not a supreme authority whose
orders are imposed on its citizens, but the expression of their common interest;
that is, a delegation of the community. It seeks to administer with the same
simplicity with which an individual or a corporation of individuals would exercise
its administrative functions. Hence, the administration of public affairs does not
imply any mystery, whether stately or evil, and its container does not hold the
mandate of the governed, but rather the reason of state.
Political culture is in a constant state of change, since, as can be seen
from a historical perspective, many different factors influence its development:
the pattern of traditional norms, new historical processes, the behavior of
political leaders, international events, chance happenings, and the coming
together of circumstances. This explains why, in the development of the political
culture of modern Britain, many standards have been preserved from
generation to generation, although in some cases in a modified or tempered
form (Rose, 1964: 37).

The development of the state in Great Britain –supporting Round’s


thesis– stands in significant contrast with that of its counterparts on the
continent, where the absence of proportion and scope in Charlemagne’s
imperial ambitions, under nonviable historical conditions and using primitive
methods of domination, ran in parallel to his lack of rational means of
administration. The reigning historical conditions, which were characterized by a
natural economy, a lack of communication, the absence of a rational financial
system and bureaucracy, in addition to worn-out institutions poorly adopted

38
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

from the Roman experience, precluded the development of a great empire. The
location of European countries within or outside the Carolingian Empire was
instrumental in the degree of feudalization they each developed.

This uniquely exemplifies England, where the feudalization imported by


the Normans was shaped by governmental technologies brought from the East
and by the absence of the imperial factor that played such a determining role on
the continent. The country occupies a land area of some 150,000 km2; that is,
providing eleventh-century political force and the means of domination. England
evolved directly from a tribal system to a state, reinforced by the Normans and
their sense of statehood. As Otto Hintze noted, since the island, situated at the
edge of the empire, was feudalized from the outside, the feudal waters never
become very deep and soon withdrew without infecting the country with the
childhood disease of imperialism (Hintze, 1968a: 55, 58). The Normans
suppressed the Anglo-Saxon political order by means of large-scale
expropriation and by proclaiming the monarch as the universal owner of the
land. England, an exception in Europe’s feudalization history, confirms the rule
that the state is formed out of the tribe. Its territory was occupied by
independent shire regimes that gradually aggregated until they made up a
broader state characterized by compatibility between its means of domination
and the territory. In fact, the rudiments of state order were implemented by
William the Conqueror and developed by his successors, primarily to centralize
a solvent financial system. In contrast to the Anglo-Saxon regime, which never
became a feudal state although it contained some feudal elements, William
organized an absolutist bureaucratic regime; a centralized state, which was the
first in Europe. Two centuries later, the stratified constitution had replaced the
feudal configuration, the monarchy was strong, and a monetary economy had
developed.

The typical, emblematic development of the state described above might


be supposed to have inspired a fountain of illustrious theories of the state, but
such was not the case. Except for Thomas Hobbes, the country did not produce
any scholars of theories of the state as did the continent. It was Germany and
Italy, where state unity was precarious during the sixteenth century, that
produced a distinguished group of theorists of the state. What is more, the
concept of the national interest did not flourish in England either. A thesis
suggested by the Hellenist Ernest Barker regarding Byzantium could also be
applied to England. In Byzantium there was no deep political thought because
the institutions of the state were not called into question. Thus, in the absence
of controversy, ideas did not blossom. Something perhaps similar occurred in
England: it was presumably the success of the state that inhibited any
development of theories of state.

Without studies on the state there was little scope for the development of
a theory of public administration, with the exception of purely practical writing.
Without “crisis,” which is the raw material for ideas on public administration,
there was no place for writing on the subject.

Carlyle tells us that the English in particular are “a nation of mutes.” But
their silence puts them in a relationship and harmony with that which language
does not express (Fouillee, 1903: 207, 208). However, although less sociable

39
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

insofar as his temperament is concerned, the Englishman is superior to other


peoples in the art of association, since he is able to keep his individualism
within the associations of which he forms part. But his sociability is not equal to
that of the Frenchman, for example, because it does not stem from sentiment,
but from reason and action. Thus it is not out of necessity nor by innate liking of
the company that they associate, but because they appreciate the need for
working together to achieve the goal that they judge as useful. In fact, the
English became aware very early on of the power of association, because since
the Middle Ages they began to cluster into associations based in the main cities
of the kingdom, building ongoing business, trade, and industrial ties. Indeed,
when they create an organization, it is always with a positive, restrictive goal.
This custom of joining together to achieve a common purpose, whether for
utilitarian or charitable purposes –which are considered to have a higher
usefulness– has been preserved through the centuries.

Paradoxically, this rational quality of organizing for utilitarian purposes,


which the British have mastered as a high art, never caught the attention of
either practical or theoretical writers. Moreover, for many years they bore the
stigma of being laymen in administration. Otto Hintze noted many years ago
that during the nineteenth century the enthusiasm for an independent
administration and its overvaluation against the maligned but necessary
bureaucracy produced an administrative romanticism that should not blind us to
the fact that the administration was a lazy, amateurish administration, already
backward since the eighteenth century (Hintze, 1968b: 98). By the 1970s it was
clear that Britain had similar or equivalent administrative institutions to those on
the European continent, and many of them even had a common origin. But it is
a failing of the British not to have developed in the least ideas relating to these
institutions, unlike the continent. Hence F.F. Ridley claimed that in the theory of
public administration, it is an underdeveloped country (Ridley, 1972: 65). For
many years Great Britain stood apart from the upper reaches of administrative
development, remaining on the margins of any advancement in the study of
public administration.

40
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

The Language

From every angle by which Great Britain might be examined, one always
finds a mixture, of which its language is an emblematic case. So, although it is
taken for granted that English is a Germanic language, the reality is that more
than half of its everyday words in the current vocabulary are of Latin origin. It is
a bridge language, a stopcock in the gulf between the Germanic and the
Romance families: it is a language that combines simple and familiar Germanic
words with magnificent Latinisms, capable of including a broad range of fine
nuances of expression in its dual vocabulary (Barker, 1944: 13). The English
language has been under a powerful Franco-Roman influence; its vocabulary
contains twice as many words of French origin as of Germanic origin. For
example, in the nineteenth-century etymological dictionary, Latin etymologies
take up the most space (Fouillee, 1903: 193). This leads Ernest Barker to
propose that his language, thanks to its widespread use in the United States
and the British Commonwealth of Nations, was suited since ancient times to be
a language of international trade and the second language of the world, as
indeed is the case today.

This is important in itself in any case, because, as Burckhardt stated,


languages are at the head of their cultures, because they are what gives birth to
the soul of their people. Language is the image of the nation and the material
that manifests the substance of its life, especially when the words emanate from
the great poets and thinkers (Burckhardt, 1961: 103–104).

A crucial consequence of the Norman Conquest was the creation of the


English language (Trevelyan, 1976: 117). After the Battle of Hastings, the
ancient Anglo-Saxon language spoken by Alfred the Great was banished from
the salon, the office, the royal court, the court of justice and the cloister; and
even disdained as an argot spoken by peasants and serfs. In fact, it almost
disappeared completely as a written language. Scholars and learned persons
naturally lost interest in Anglo-Saxon, since the clergy spoke Latin and the
middle class spoke French. When a phenomenon like this occurs, namely, that
a language is rarely written, and scholars lose interest in it, it is among the
ordinary people that it is swiftly adapted in its oral form to the needs and uses of
daily life. This is what happened, for during the three centuries that the native
language remained a rural dialect, it lost the difficult inflections and complicated
genders that had characterized it, while gaining a flexibility and adaptability that
illuminated its merits. At the same time, it was undergoing a parallel process of
enrichment by a multitude of French words and concepts. Thus English is
dominated by words of French origin in the vocabulary of politics, justice,
religion, hunting, cooking and art. George Trevelyan notes that this was how the
native language of England returned in an enhanced form to educated English
society as reflected in Chaucer’s tales and Wycliff’s Bible, and was enriched in
the works of Shakespeare and Milton. Nothing could be more ironic than that
this language that managed to survive underground and unconsciously should
rise to such heights that today it is spoken around the world (Trevelyan, 1976:
117).

41
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

During the period when English was formed in Anglo-Saxon times, the
language had many regional variations; the main dialects were the versions
spoken in Wessex, Northumbria, and the East and West Midlands. The
language of Wessex was that spoken in Alfred’s court, but the Norman
conquest relegated it forever to the farmhouse and the field (Trevelyan, 1976:
117). It was another dialect, that spoken in the eastern Midlands, which became
the predecessor of modern English, persisting over other dialects mainly
because it was spoken in London, Oxford and Cambridge. It was this language,
in part, that Chaucer used and enriched with many French words, while Wycliffe
expanded it with many words from Vulgar Latin. They founded a school that
also used this same dialect, since their writings and translations circulated
widely in manuscript form. In the late fifteenth century, Caxton’s printing press
was installed at Westminster, which led to the popularization of Chaucer and
the distribution of translations into English of various works.

It was during the reign of Elizabeth I that nationalist sentiments emerged


which furthered the development of the English language. From the loss of
Normandy and the end of the Angevin Empire, the French-speaking upper class
was separated from its possessions and relationships on the other side of the
Channel. Its culture, uprooted from France, became exotic on the island.
Trevelyan notes that a hundred years before the publication of Chaucer’s “The
Prioress’s Tale,” the French used to smile at the strange hybrid language that
was then beginning to be the language spoken by educated Englishmen. But
this was the usual language up to the reign of Edward III (1321–1377), and it
came to be regarded as the hallmark of a gentleman (Trevelyan, 1976: 189).
Shortly after Poitiers (1356), Parliament approved a law decreeing that because
French was a foreign language in the kingdom, all judicial processes would be
spoken in the English language and recorded in Latin. Thus it was that the first
Englishmen to consider English their native language were the jurists. Although
the law was initially observed only relatively, it soon received greater
acceptance even though lawyers, with their professional conservatism,
continued for much longer to write their documents in the Law French language
in which their predecessors had addressed the courts.

A more fundamental revolution occurred in the language used in schools,


furthering the process by which English became the language of the educated
class. It was modest schoolmasters who prepared the way for Chaucer and
Wycliffe in their century, later followed by Shakespeare and Milton. This
represented much more than a northern offshoot of the French culture; some
thinkers saw it as even more important than the Magna Carta. The Old English
language had its literature before any of the continental languages did; King
Alfred is considered as the father of prose of his country. There were even
writers of high culture who did not necessarily have to recur to including Latin
vocabulary in their works (Bradley, 1947: 382). But this process was slowed by
the Norman Conquest, which derailed what had until then been the usual
language, mainly because the young people stopped learning English, as
French was taught in its place. By the time English was reborn, the traditional
spellings of the ancestral language had almost disappeared, and the language
was transcribed in a phonetic system based on French.

42
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

Latin is one of the main bases of the British administrative language, not
only through the long-ago Roman history, but through the set of medieval
administrative institutions that conserved their Latin names, such as the desk
(scriptorium), where secretaries and scribes do their work, which dates from the
Norman Conquest (Chrimes, 1952: 26). Another is clerc, from “clericus,”
referring to an educated person, which later transformed into a synonym of
“official.” As found in many letters written before 1066, these writings were often
written in Old English before it was replaced by Latin, although sometimes they
were written bilingually, and increasingly so as French gradually came to be the
official administrative language (Bradley, 1947: 378, 380). This is what caused
Old English to survive as an administrative language, although in a secondary
position, as it continued to conform to the writing style and standards of ministry
officials. Similarly, many of the Latin words adopted by Old English are from the
language spoken by the clergy; that is, not copied from books, since they were
transmitted to German soil by priests from England who went there to
evangelize, and they are still visible in Modern German.

Literary English was dead, and had to be created from the ground up,
while the spoken English which survived lost many of its words to French
synonyms. It was natural, then, that when they wished to express an idea
foreign to the spoken language of the masses, writers found it easier to adopt a
term that already existed in familiar literary languages than to coin a new term,
compound or term derived from native elements (Bradley, 1947: 383). In this
way, a plethora of Latin words entered the English language, first through terms
adopted via the educated French, and later directly, while word endings were
eliminated as in French words. Later, in the Elizabethan era, the formation of
new words from Latin was even more common, and while many of the
neologisms of this period soon disappeared, not a few remained. The heritage
left to the English language by the language of the Romans is undeniable.

This complex process of the formation of the language of the island


explains the gap between English and German, wider and deeper than the
separation from French. This was brought into sharp relief in the nineteenth
century with the translation into English of the most important book on the
theory of the state by Johann Kaspar Bluntschli (Allgemeinines Staatsrecht), by
three teachers. The task required the key terms of the book to be harmonized
and made consistent with the Shakespeare’s language, a difficult challenge. For
example, the translators acknowledged that they “unfortunately” found no
appropriate word to translate Recht, (although they occasionally rendered it as
“Right”). The case was similar for other terms, such as Rechtsstaat, Volk, Staat,
Staatsrecht and others. Fortunately for the afflicted translators, they had the
French version of Bluntschli’s book (Le droit public général and La politique),
with whose help they were able to translate these terms more accurately
(Bluntschli, 1885: VI–VII). The same difficulty was encountered by A.H. Keane,
translator of a book by Rudolf Gneist that was very important for England, in
which he traced the history of Parliament (Gneist, 1892: V).

The English language, as can be observed, is assembled largely from


materials of the Latin culture, and to some extent, seems to harmonize more
with French (and other Latin languages), than with German.

43
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

From the preceding pages, it is clear that a unique English administrative


culture exists today that was forged within British culture in general. It is also
clear that the Anglo-Saxon heritage has been fading over the centuries, and
that its legacy is mainly demographic and linguistic rather than social and
cultural. We see in Great Britain a mixed people consisting of Briton, Norse,
Anglo-Saxon, Frenchified Norman, and perhaps also Roman elements in the
depths of the British DNA. To continue referring to an “Anglo-Saxon
administrative culture” seems i1nappropriate for there exists no real thing that
corresponds to such a term, unless for convenience we allow it as a polite
euphemism.

44
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

Chapter 3

THE FORMATION OF THE BRITISH ADMINISTRATIVE STATE:


INTERNAL FACTORS
When the administrative development of Great Britain is examined, it is
generally claimed that the country was spared the bureaucracy and
centralization that afflicted the continental nations. This singular fact springs
from an innate individualism that obstinately resists government intervention,
while its ability to create social well-being through private enterprise is praised.
These words, however, hide more than they reveal because the cause must
rather be sought in social indifferentism and avidity for material goods (Finer,
1934:911). Thus the only way to confirm the hypothesis is to examine what is
historically known and well founded. The first peculiar feature that stands out in
the historical development of the British public administration is the scarcity of
conscious reflections on the subject, at least up to the late eighteenth century.
Following the reign of Henry III (1216–1272) and his immediate successors,
there was no one in Britain with the mental caliber or strength of character
displayed by Richelieu, Colbert or Pombal on the continent as they laid the
basis for a societal initiative and the corresponding administrative system. The
reforming work of Richelieu and Colbert is famous, but equally outstanding is
that of Sebastião José de Carvalho e Melo, Marquis of Pombal, who effectively
governed Portugal from 1750 to 1777 when Joseph I was king. He was also
distinguished for his statesmanship, a decisive element of his administrative
reform that pulled the country out of its ancestral backwardness. Thomas
Cromwell, Francis Walsingham, and William and Robert Cecil were held back
by powerful landowners reluctant to implement reforms and by the obstinacy of
the House of Commons. As a result, everything that was new and inventive in
administration flowed from the organization of the Treasury and the Foreign
Ministry and the Royal Council, and only secondarily from the Secretary of
State.

Causes of the Uniqueness of the British Administration

Contributing to this scenario was the fact that the country’s needs did not
require the centralization or the hierarchy that had been established on the
continent. By the end of the fifteenth century, the modern state had barely
emerged from its inherited feudalism. Most official positions were held by
people from corporations, unions and guilds, as well as by clerks, priests and
lawyers. Significant positions such as that of the chancellor and treasurer, as
well as royal staff, would not become important until later, for at the beginning
their tasks were light and their power did not publicly trouble the parties. When
in the sixteenth century the nation awakened to a consciousness of its internal
and external identity and the House of Tudor raised the power of the Crown to
great heights, the monarchy and its ministers faced a powerful Parliament with

45
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

a prime seat in the administration, as well as two thousand justices of the peace
and thousands of rural parishes that governed around their perimeter. As a
result, plans and aspirations in the center were under effective external control,
something which did not exist in Germany or France at the time. In fact, this
divergence had been in place for a century and a half. It limited the size, the
aspirations and the quality of the central administration at the origin. However,
there was an administrative apparatus available that was already operating in
the towns at little or no cost, which was very convenient for the royal treasury
(Finer, 1934:912). When the state proposed projects intended to expand
industry and commerce, the government trusted this local system. But –as Finer
says– what costs nothing, generally yields nothing when the original momentum
has faded. When the parliamentary drive disappeared, more harm was
produced than good, because the administrative instruments necessary for the
state’s activities had not been planned consciously for their application
according to the law. The desired ends had been duly formulated, but not the
means for obtaining them. Herman Finer explains that the government even
tried to step up enforcement of the Poor Law in the late sixteenth and early
seventeenth centuries, but their lack of success exposed the structural
weakness of the administration. What is surprising is that despite this failure,
administrative thinkers on the continent expressed their admiration of Great
Britain’s local freedom, although paradoxically their enthusiasm was stimulated
mainly by the work of German author Rudolf Gneist on local administration.
By now there was sufficient awareness among the British of the
uniqueness of their public administration, centered around the concept of local
“self-government,” as pointed out by Joshua Toulmin Smith, whose book was
perhaps among the first to systematically address the topic of self-government
(Smith, 1851:17).

The ancient motives that had given birth to British local administration -
bureaucracy- avoiding and prone to recruiting “amateurs” and bailiffs, operating
since the times of Richard The Lionheart – evolved into a dense swamp that
obstructed the road to industrialization and consolidation of the modern state. It
is both curious and astonishing at the same time how Great Britain opted for
self-government and how this status quo was preserved for centuries.

46
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

Judicial Administration as Public Administration

However, as the society at the time was a conglomerate in which the


habit of self-government was nonexistent, the new system had to be cultivated
among landowners and the emerging middle classes to produce, after a long
process of maturation, the legendary right of local government. This
administration was not bureaucratic, deliberately discarding that mode in favor
of officials trained specifically to work in a department of the state with
techniques acquired from their professions (Finer, 1934: 913–914). Another of
its prominent features was that it was a judicial method of administration
exercised by justices of the peace in their districts, who supervised and
corrected post facto, rather than before the fact; that is, their involvement took
place before and after the fact. Finer explains that while legal action comes
after the fact, and corrects and redresses wrongs, administrative action involves
the appointment of officials who anticipate the future and monitor that
administrative acts are carried out correctly. This, provided they are equipped
with the responsibility needed to lay down rules intended to guide action and
avoid error, and supported by staff endowed with an ongoing sense of
responsibility to enable them to ensure that the standards stipulated for the
work are applied.

Although it is a general rule that the courts should be confined mainly to


ruling on disputes between individuals, it was at the time considered fitting to
also entrust them with administrative or quasi-administrative functions as
needed by the government. This has happened in all states, but especially in
nations that failed to establish a clear distinction between judicial and
administrative functions by statutory law (Goodnow, 1897: I, 162). The best
example is Great Britain where, given the multitude of exceptions to the
adoption of the principle of separation of powers, judicial officials have been
exercising administrative functions from time immemorial. This confusion has
reigned even in the United States: for a long time, due to the British heritage,
there was no attempt to separate the judicial and administrative authorities.
Thus, justices of the peace being important judicial and administrative officials,
almost all important local positions have their origin in them.

Justices of the peace received most of their powers from the sheriffs.
They were also given the task of overseeing the parish administration
established over the Church in the Tudor era, since its courts, which held
sessions every quarter, acted as the authority in the county. Over time, they
became the most important local officials in administrative and judicial affairs.
This system was much more decentralized than the prefecture organization of
sheriffs, as all officers were chosen from the towns where they served
(Goodnow, 1897: I, 33–34). Moreover, if initially most officials were appointed
directly or indirectly by the central government and could be removed from
office, the fact that they did not receive compensation –since they belonged to
the upper classes– and that the service they provided was obligatory and
arduous, meant that over time they increased in independence. Nor did the
threat of removal from office matter much to a justice of the peace, because it
meant relief from a difficult task, not a loss of livelihood. The system ensured a
high degree of local self-government, given that the independence of the

47
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

justices deprived the central administration of the ability to intervene in their


activities. This fact, entrenched by the passage of time, ultimately resulted in a
confused belief that self-government was the opposite of public administration.

Rudolf Gneist explained in 1866 that the true essence of self-government


is that it constitutes a system of state administration whose consistent nature
lies in its being a political committee to the commons. Also, like any self
government, it rests on the political principle of the right of royal appointment,
which includes sheriffs, magistrates, military commissioners and military
officers. This right of the king and obligation of the state was instituted in the
time of the Normans, and never subsequently took on the nature of the rights of
the political estates or elective positions termed Wahlamt (Gumplowicz,
undated: 310–311).That is, Gneist shows that self-government is part of the
British public administration, just as the prefecture is part of the public
administration of France, with all the peculiarities that it entails. Its organization
and the effects it had on British history do not negate the fact that it is another
part of the British public administration system by means of delegation, not of
cession.

One of the traditional British institutions, the justice of the peace, was
transplanted to America, where Tocqueville portrayed him as a compromise
between the common man and the judge; imparting justice and administering at
the same time, without necessarily being versed in law (Tocqueville, 1981: I,
139). He is, in Tocqueville’s view, the policeman of society whose role demands
honesty and good sense rather than the domain of science.

These institutions originated during the reign of Richard I (1189–1199)


who, as sovereign, reveled in his absence and neglect of his kingdom, although
he enjoyed enormous popularity. He was, strictly speaking, a knight whose
exploits began in the Third Crusade. In his absence he appointed Hubert Walter
as Archbishop of Canterbury, and at the same time as Justiciar (chief minister)
of the crown. Walter ruled England better than Richard would have, for he not
only consolidated peace in the kingdom, but began supporting the middle
classes in the cities and counties, a strategy that prepared the country for the
major constitutional changes that would be made during the following two
reigns (Trevelyan, 1976:143). His reform program began by granting privileges
to certain cities, including autonomy by means of governance by elected
officials. At this point two institutions converged; the alderman (an Old English
word), and the mayor, a word imported from France. It was the people of
London who secured the right to elect their mayor before any other of their
countrymen, and the mayor of London was the first official to hold an office of
that name. Moreover, middle class support was leveraged by the government
as an important factor in county affairs. In particular, the rural middle class and
knights in their manors overseeing their interests on their farms were
increasingly engaged in addressing county issues.

The middle class was one of the important factors in shaping the
peculiarly English system of government, as the crown deliberately entrusted
local administration to the middle class and the justices of the peace, rather
than the sheriff. The middle class did not yet carry out its role under the name of
gentry (patricians) but it had already been entrusted the post of coroner (judge)

48
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

to defend the judicial and financial rights of the monarch in the county. An
important fact to keep in mind is that the services entrusted them were
delegated by the central government, not on the initiative of representatives.
This measure was personified in the “public charge,” by which the monarch
persuaded or forced his subjects to acquire a custom of self-government
(Trevelyan, 1976:144). Walter also ordered that applicants before the county
court; that is, the local middle class themselves, should choose four of their
number to serve as coroner. By extension, he also ordered jurors, until then
chosen by the sheriff, to be selected by a committee of four knights chosen by
the county court. This was the origin of the autonomy of the county, which was
not effected by the barons, but by the middle class, by which at the same time
the seeds for the principle of representation were sown. The result of this
process was that in the late twelfth century a rural middle class emerged that
became accustomed to carrying out public business and to electing
representatives. As Trevelyan says, when this political mode reached up as far
the national parliament, there were significant consequences for “England and
for the world.”
As can be observed, self-government did not emerge spontaneously, nor
was it planned by the local areas themselves, but rather as a central policy; yet
this is a paradox. What the crown did, to put it plainly, was to delegate
administrative functions and responsibilities away from the Treasury and onto
the middle class and well-to-do farmers who lived in the towns. It was
essentially the large-scale recruitment of a large portion of the rural population
compelled to take charge, without payment, of their common affairs, largely
abandoned by the crown. Local administration was entrusted to the locals, but
they were not taught the art of managing the affairs of their community. In short,
it was a onerous “public burden” laid on the rural middle class on an
unparalleled scale, but whose eventual result was an autonomous government
in which the British still take pride. This unique and important fact was not
overlooked by the knowledgeable eyes of Otto Hinze, who observed the
crown’s successful effort in the counties to prevent feudalization in exchange for
turning them into public service corporations to which the duties and
responsibilities of state power were delegated (Hintze, 1968c: 149).This
abnegation was worth it, for parliamentarism emerged here from the
administrative responsibilities delegated by the central power of the crown; its
origin lies in the combination of the principle of authority and the corporative
principle.

The magnitude of Walter’s administrative work must not be forgotten; an


outstanding statist, he reformed the central offices of the government during the
reigns of King Richard and King John. He served as Baron of the Exchequer
beginning in 1184, then as justiciar of the Curia Regis and finally as the
chancellor of this important institution. It deservedly contributed to his education
as a public administrator, for he performed his duties in an exemplary fashion in
financial, legal and management matters (Poole, 1912: 186–189). He held the
eminent post of Chancellor of the Exchequer until his death, and thanks to the
documentation procedures he carried out, the Chancellery achieved a
remarkable level of efficiency. He has rightly has been recognized as having
established the British civil service in his time, and of being the greatest justiciar

49
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

in the history of the country (Chrimes, 1952: 42–43). He was, indeed, the great
builder and reformer of British administrative institutions.

50
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

The Insular Influence

Prussia and France flourished thanks to internal colonization; they


refined their national governments and all matters relating to citizenship by the
work of professional staff. The British, in contrast, turned their eyes toward the
seas and undertook a program of foreign colonization. Great Britain’s non
centralized, non-bureaucratic government emerged from a series of accidents
caused by its geographical condition and historical destiny. In principle, the
supremacy of a single political authority occurred through the Norman conquest
five centuries prior to Prussia’s and France’s achievement of that objective, not
to mention a further 200 to 300 years of consolidating what in 1066 was the first
European resurgence of a centralizing authority. Because of its geographical
situation, Britain had the advantage of being insular and isolated, which
sterilized it from invasions while it built its navy. Prussia and France, as
countries with powerful neighbors, were forced to constitute themselves as
single, indivisible nations. In contrast, in Great Britain it was not necessary to
keep the country united under the coercive power of a central authority.

As Finer observed, it was the sea in particular that saved Great Britain
from despotic administrative centralization imposed by the continental states for
the raison d'Etat (Finer, 1934: 758–759). Nor did its legal structure suffer the
papal influence of Rome, either in spirit or in religion, unlike the continent. Free
and liberal in its local administration (“anarchic although efficient, fair or
charitable”), and likewise rejecting excessive activity by the central state, it was
able to enter the industrial age to begin the revolutionary changes that would
enable it to reform the administrative structure and the methods to address new
opportunities and obligations. Also contributing to this was the loss of the
American colonies due to a team that was equally incompetent in its internal
roles and its colonial responsibilities.

England enjoys a deserved reputation for being the first administrative


state, thanks to the establishment of the Norman monarchy that politically
centralized the island: the original character of local administration is due to the
Norman sovereigns, because their absolutistism made the monarch wholly
subject to the entire population. To ensure domination over the Saxons, the
crown established a program to maintain peace by dividing the kingdom into
districts based on the old divisions into shires, and appointing a trusted official
to head each one. These districts were not public corporations, because they
did not have their own business to carry out; due to centralization, the sheriffs,
also called viscounts by the Normans, dealt with all administrative affairs. One
of the consequences of the administration being so highly centralized was the
fusion of the English population into a nation, which occurred long before it did
on the continent (Goodnow, 1897: I, 71–72). It was this centralization that
inhibited the development of independent regions, and although the
administrative system was later completely decentralized, its general principles
were left standing; that is, the local districts themselves remained in existence
although lacking legal status or their own affairs to manage: they were districts
in which all administrative matters were the responsibility of royal officials.

Nevertheless, the territorial administration configured in accordance with


political absolutism was not only deliberately diverted from its course for

51
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

reasons of state, but reversed. Indeed, as we noted, the prefectural


administration of the sheriffs remained until the reign of Richard I, when
changes were made only to the executive officers of the itinerant royal courts, to
hold elections and monitor public safety. This turned Great Britain aside from
the path followed on the continent and sapped the energy that would have
contributed to the continuity of a professional civil service, which the country
had to recover much later. A reasonable date to pinpoint the origin of the British
civil service, based on its unique cultural configuration, might be when the
crown found itself unable to hold onto its authority over Parliament in the
seventeenth century, an event which consolidated the trend of a government
lacking centralized public services such as those prevailing in Europe
(Mackenzie and Grove, 1957: 3).

From that point on, the history of the administrative development of


France and Britain followed different routes. In Great Britain, development of
the public services has been supported in the society itself, and its configuration
based on an active political community, a dominant patrician class in the rural
counties, and a citizenship organized into village and merchant corporations
(such as the old East India Company); all playing an essential part in the
common political life. This has endowed Parliament with its unique
characteristics, formed on the basis of the country gentry, and a public service
that has traditionally been composed of “intelligent amateurs. “To this we must
add the uniqueness of British absolutism, in which the autocracy of the king
exists side by side with the omnipotence of Parliament (Barker, 1945: 30–33).
During the eighteenth century, the character of the English state in particular
was properly a “state of legislators” and thus of “amateurs. “The British public
administration, in contrast to that of France and Prussia, was not staffed by
professional administrators, but by persons of independent means who had
assumed their positions as private property. At the same time, councils and
similar collegial bodies flourished in place of centralized departments, as what
can be called an administration of councils arose across Great Britain. These
bodies operated in a mode of deliberation rather than swift action, which was
eventually lost. Thus, these councils functioned, rather than agencies of action,
as guarantees of action, or bodies which instructed that action be taken. As
noted by Ernest Barker, the Napoleonic principle of “active administration” was
unknown in Great Britain. Clearly, there was no longer a body to exercise
central control over the local administrations, and there was no Ministry of the
Interior as on the continent, for it was not until 1782 that the Home Office was
created.

52
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

The Industrial Revolution


In the evolution of the British administration, it can be observed that
almost all government departments were created relatively recently, mainly
because of the state’s assumption of new duties and staff increases since
1870.The civil service, which dates back to 1855, is in fact younger than the
British Indian Civil Service.

Another fundamental factor of change is the Industrial Revolution, which


forced society to equip itself to meet new material obligations on a large scale.
Indeed, wealth, poverty, education, communication, commerce, agriculture,
colonies and manufacturing were all emerging factors that demanded large
scale obligations. Many of these provisions arose from the utilitarian political
philosophy of humanists who researched these factors to find measures to
tackle social problems. It began when the environment was altered through land
drainage, buildings, factories and roads, which then impinged on the domain of
public wealth when awareness was reached that man is as important as the
elements of his environment. Accordingly, the activity of the state broadened
and deepened, expenses increased, and the number and efficiency of
administrative staff increased (Finer, 1934: 759–760). But it was not until 1832
that their number grew rapidly, and there has not been any notable cutback
since with the exception of the Thatcher Era. But this expansion did not proceed
at a constant rate; rather it experienced a sudden surge corresponding to the
idea of new legislative and administrative duties of the state as well as the
expansion of existing public services. In the 1930s, the administrative
organization of Great Britain was transformed over the course of a few years
from a system based on simple improvisation to an orderly, powerful system
sensitive to meeting modern needs.

This transformation took place essentially because the old judicial


administration and the administration run by amateurs embodied in self
government, which had been functional until then, was totally inadequate for the
country’s new social circumstances. This was evident in 1830, when the
importance of local finances grew as taxes were increased as a result of the
increase in poverty. That is, the change in administration was due mainly to
social changes and technological innovation that followed the application of
steam to manufacturing processes and machinery in general, which produced a
revolution in industrial methods (Goodnow, 1897: I, 243–244). Meanwhile, the
large cities were increasing in population, and owners of movable property –the
commercial and industrial classes– were becoming increasingly important.
Hence the shift in parliamentary representation, introduced by the Reform Act
1832, which also gave them political supremacy at the expense of the nobility
and the gentry. Given that the local administration was a part of the power held
by these classes, the new political masters adopted an administrative plan to
manage these issues to increase their local influence.

Another incentive for change was rooted in the demand for radical social
reforms. As the poor rate rose dramatically in the years prior to 1832, the
authorities of each locality competed strenuously to shift the burden of
supporting the poor onto neighboring towns. This led to a complicated

53
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

domiciliary law that conflicted altogether with the needs of an industrial society.
The reforms could therefore take place only if a uniform administration was
established, since their enactment would imply a central intervention that had
not existed up to that point. The new Parliament agreed to conduct a thorough
investigation into the administration of subsistence for the poor and the
municipal government. This task began in 1833 with the work of the Royal
Commission into the operation of the Poor Laws (Goodnow, 1897: I, 44–
46).The result, published in 1834, gave the document the reputation of being
the most notable in the entire history of English society, and perhaps of all
social history. The reform plans, enacted in the 1834 Poor Law Amendment
Act, called for a representative local administration for taxpayers, as well as
increased involvement by the central administration. The parishes, which under
the previous system had borne the burden of supporting the poor, were
grouped into unions under the leadership of locally elected boards of guardians,
who administered poor relief. The detailed implementation of administrative
tasks, formerly the responsibility of unremunerated officials –inspectors of the
poor and justices of the peace – was now entrusted to paid, full-time officials.
At that time the idea of a central administration equipped with offices was
new. During the Middle Ages, decentralized forms of government emerged
under a variety of conditions, which largely vanished or changed their nature
during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. In the first half of the
nineteenth century, John Stuart Mill could still claim that what could be done by
the central authorities should be only a small part of national public affairs (Mill,
1958: 212).It was a maxim of English local self-government, which contrasted
sharply with the administrative centralization on the continent. Since there was
no local elected agency to carry out emerging services, new collegial bodies
were created, such as the boards of guardians, local health boards, and school
boards. But from the second half of the nineteenth century on, local self
government had ceased to mean local autonomy; bodies such as the Poor Law
Board had broad powers to set regulations designed to directly manage a
service and subject it to inspection (Mackenzie and Grove, 1957: 263).
Moreover, these powers were augmented when the central government began
to allocate grants on a large scale to level economic conditions between poor
and wealthy areas. The centralization process that had begun due to economic
and political pressure was underscored by principles of efficiency. English
administrative history is full of examples of services started by local
corporations but subsequently taken over by central officials. The New Poor
Law was stigmatized by Joshua Toulmin Smith as one of the leading causes of
the country’s centralization and consequently of loss of freedom (Smith, 1851:
374–375).Furthermore, he held that the law not only concentrated the vices of
centralization, but that bringing back practices from the times of the Roman
Empire would pave the way to the ruin of morality and the greatness of the
state.

Processes gestated centuries earlier gave rise to a vicious administration


in which titles turned into classes, for they became the property of those who
already held them hereditarily for life when the crown decreased the frequency
by which it made and revoked them. Positions could even be held by a
substitute and be sold, since the monarch could not abolish them without
compensation to their owners (Mackenzie and Grove, 1957: 3–4). When it was

54
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

essential to appoint competent candidates, a way to do so could be found, but


without there necessarily being a relationship between merit and remuneration.
Despite the reluctance to accept this type of administration, the nineteenth
century was not all inefficiency. In some areas, there were figures who
maintained well-administered offices, and although there was no general
structure of public administration, such offices contributed to the progress of
society.

But under the new social conditions, this patronage system was strongly
criticized, although in principle more for political than administrative reasons.
Edmond Burke’s speeches in 1780 heralded the current of reform, which lasted
from Gladstone until the 1850s. Its theme was the economy of the public
service; its epitome a substantial pamphlet on administrative reform signed by
The Liverpool Financial Reform Administration, which aimed not only to define
the reform, but also to show how it should be orchestrated. The association’s
purpose was to use all legal and constitutional means to induce stricter
economy in government spending in order to introduce efficiency into the
departments in charge of public services (The Liverpool Financial Reform
Administration, 1855).
It was at this point that Great Britain entered modernity, the foundations
were laid for the future creation of the civil service, and the principles of its
administration were developed: first, that the compensation for a position should
be related to the work, which meant the abolition of sinecures, of the selling of
offices, and the employment of surrogates. The new system was consolidated
in the 1830s. Secondly, although the crown retained its longstanding right to
dismiss officials at any time without prior notice, without compensation and
without having to provide justification, it had not exercised this right for a long
time. The reform revived this right, but also established the principle of stability
of employment; namely that that officials were not replaced when a new political
party rose to power, because permanence was an old established principle
(Mackenzie and Grove, 1957: 4–5). Third, it was necessary to exercise the right
to dismiss a public servant when justified, causing faithful officials who might
become incapable of working for reasons beyond their control to be left jobless
and without compensation. This motivated the pension system overseen by
Parliament that emerged from the retirement laws which were enacted
beginning in 1810. Fourth, as parliamentary control was limited to finance, the
number and salaries of officials of the crown was submitted annually and
subject to approval within departmental budgets. Lastly, parliamentary oversight
is only exercised by the House of Commons, while also moderated by the
cabinet. Internally, the ultimate responsibility for budget issues fell to the
Chancellor of the Exchequer and his department, the Treasury, which rose to a
prominent position in the central administration. These five principles,
established in the mid-nineteenth century, reflect the successful path of
progress in public administration for the good of the economy. Their essential
data are the 1856 report of the Select Committee on Public Monies, the creation
of the Public Accounts Committee of the House in 1861, and the 1866
Exchequer and Audit Departments Act. This move coincides with the movement
towards centralization to make the public administration more efficient.

55
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

At the same time, the utilitarian school demanded that the continental
type of rational organization be introduced into the public service, a plan which
failed because of the existing antipathy to heavy state intervention. Although
Benthamite principles were successful in some fields, public opinion leaned
towards government action, not through centralization, but through local
autonomy.

Over time, the British public administration began to resemble its


continental counterparts more and more, especially in the proliferation of
ministries. For many years the only government departments were the
Admiralty (created in the fifteenth century) and the Treasury (1572), separated
from the famous old post of Exchequer. In the eighteenth century, the ministries
of the Post Office (1782), the Home Office (1782), Commerce (1784) and War
(1794), were added, similarly to what was occurring in Europe. Departments
created in the following century were the Colonial Office (1801), the Ministry of
Public Works (1851), the Scottish Office (1885), the Ministry of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Food (1889) and the Ministry of Education (1899), again parallel
to developments in Europe (Mackenzie and Grove, 1957: 176).Ministries
created in the twentieth century were the Ministries of Labor (1916), Air (1917),
Pensions (1917) and National Insurance (1946), as well as those of Health
(1919), Transportation (1919), and Civil Aviation in 1945), Commonwealth
Relations (1925), Food (1939), Energy and Fuel (1942), and Defense (1946).
Lastly, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government was created in 1950.

By the mid-nineteenth century, Britain retained some of its old


administrative culture, with the exception of local self-government –much
changed– its anti-bureaucratic bent, and its sermons in favor of laisser faire,
and its praise for administrative practice, among others. Gradually, Great
Britain’s public administration came to be more like that of Germany and France
than that of its own long-ago past.

56
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

Chapter 4

THE FORMATION OF THE BRITISH ADMINISTRATIVE


STATE: EXTERNAL FACTORS

Centralized administration emerged in Europe to ensure that the will of


the state would be carried out effectively. Although forms of bureaucratic
organization were well known before the French Revolution, they reached their
peak with Napoleon’s successful administration in France, and the
administration established in Prussia by Frederick II and his predecessors.
Great Britain, meanwhile, freed itself from the patronage system when it
adopted an open system of skill-based examinations for entry to the civil
service. But the source of the idea was external; it was the reform of the English
administration in India established by the 1833 Charter Act. For a short time
(1800–1802), the College of Fort William even operated in Calcutta; its work
was carried on and improved in Britain when the East India College in
Haileybury opened its doors in 1806 to train civil servants for India. The college
continued its fruitful work until 1857 (Stephen, 1900: 270–271). The school
enjoyed such a fine reputation that it counted Robert Malthus among its
professors. In fact, the term “civil service” was introduced into the country from
India, where first the East Indian Company and later the British government,
“carried out a gigantic experiment in centralised administration of the European
type” (Mackenzie and Grove, 1957: 5–6). The company’s offices were a bastion
of utilitarianism under both Mills, father and son: James and John Stuart. But
Charles Trevelyan, permanent secretary of the Treasury (1840–1859) uniquely
stands out: he made his name in India, and together with T.B. Macaulay carried
the experiment back to Great Britain.

The Role of India in the Modernization of the British


Administration

The first British who arrived in India as members of the East India
Company were merchants, and the name originally given to them was “factors”
because they were agents working in commercial establishments called
“factories” (trading posts). This occurred during the year 1601. It must be
emphasized that these “factories” were not manufacturing facilities, but rather
commercial trading establishments which by 1675 were systematized and
consolidated. British men who were going to follow a commercial career thus
began as factors, later becoming merchants and eventually senior merchants
(O'Malley, 1931: 3–4). At the front of each factory toiled an agent, since all the
main locations were under the purview of a president, assisted by the Council of
Senior Merchants. It is worth noting that the organization of these factories
followed the model established years earlier by the Dutch.

It is important to note that, in addition to the commercial tasks carried out


by the company’s servants, for reasons inherent to the nature of the country
where they worked, they were obliged to operate the municipal government and

57
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

administration of justice in the three regions under the company’s influence;


Madras, Calcutta and Bombay, where the Company had acquired land rights.
Thus courts and corporations were established in these three cities. Reverence
for English institutions even prompted British municipal emblems of the time to
be adopted in Madras; the offices of lord mayor and alderman were installed as
in London, copying their ceremonial robes (O'Malley, 1931: 3–4). In Calcutta,
the company management entrusted servants with matters relating to
administration and land use, including jurisdiction over the inhabitants and tax
collection. The courts, in turn, addressed civil and criminal matters, while the tax
offices were responsible for collecting land taxes. Similar offices were
established in Madras, mainly those concerned with taxes on vehicles,
customs, markets, and housing.
When the career in Indian administration was created, the duties of civil
servants had grown to such an extent that, as O’Malley observed, hardly any
matter remained outside their purview except those relating to the navy,
defense and health. The civil servant was an administrator, tax expert, judge,
secretary and diplomat. His tasks in his assigned district also included
construction of roads and canals, bridges and walls, administration of prisons,
and health inspection. He further served as a police officer, postal worker,
supervisor, customs official, educator, comptroller, salt agent, lottery official,
superintendent, auditor, army paymaster, and banker. In India, civil servants
carried out all the tasks which the magistrates and the gentry carried out in the
British Isles, as well as many others. But this process did not consist only in
proliferation of the tasks as in a Weberian bureaucracy; that is, the ability to
take on a diverse variety of tasks, but also an upward technological progression
that led to the establishment of specialized departments staffed by experts.
These new organizations were specifically devoted to customs, audit,
administration of salt, telegraph and postal services, and agriculture, industry,
records, and credit unions, among others. Other departments were devoted to
censuses, emergency services and further matters (Blunt, 1937: 2–3, 5).
Sometimes civil servants also had to read Sunday prayers, carry out military
commissions, or serve on juries. If they were at one time mostly traders,
eventually they came to master the art of government in all its aspects, albeit on
a small scale.

This explains clearly why Great Britain owes the very term “civil service”
to its Indian experience, for since the era of the East India Company, civil
service was distinguished from military service, as well as from services of a
marine or ecclesiastical type (Blunt, 1937: 2–3, 5). We should not forget that
civil servants were originally commercial officers, and that once the Company
began to acquire territory, it began to transform from a trading corporation into
government, while its commercial agents evolved into public administrators. By
1765, the term “civil servant” was established, as could be observed recorded
not only in legislation but also in everyday correspondence and bulletins issued
by the Indian administration.

The British experience in India represents an enormous paradox,


principally because in that country, company officials performed tasks that in
Europe –in France and Prussia, for example– were carried out by public
officials. And while it is true that their tasks were primarily commercial, necessity

58
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

turned East India Company servants into de facto public administrators. This
trend was clearly paving the way to a transformation that would lead to the
formation of an authentic civil service whose members’ primary task was not so
much trade as public administration (O'Malley, 1931: 4–5). This began in 1772,
when Warren Hastings and Lord Cornwallis established the civil service in its
modern form. The former can be credited with reorganizing the financial
administration, reshaping the judicial system, and freeing trade from damaging
impositions. Hastings also instituted a fundamental transformation in 1781 when
he initiated the separation between administration and justice, which,
nevertheless, Great Britain has not yet entirely achieved.
We do not know to what extent Great Britain owes its modern public
administration to the Indian experience, but there is no doubt that the civil
servants who long worked there, besides setting the standard for the British civil
service, were receiving intensive administrative training in a country where they
were required to work in a hyperactive, centralized organization that did not
exist in their homeland. It was there that they could practice that which would
later show them how to modernize the metropolitan administration using the
experience gained in the colonial periphery. John Stuart Mill proposed a way to
interpret this contribution when he noted in 1861 that his country needed to tap
into deeper political ideas, but not those from Europe; rather from the unique
experience of its rule in India –an idea that was already being considered in
British politics (Mill, 1958: 270). It is, in fact, undeniable that the Indian
experience led directly to administrative modernization of Great Britain not only
because the civil service existed there before it did in the metropolitan state, but
also from the experience and wisdom that returning public administrators
brought back to their native soil.

Among these, the experienced officials L.S.S. O’Malley and Edward


Blunt are notable for the wisdom they bequeathed to their countrymen. The
former served as executive officer in several districts in Bengal, and later in the
British secretary of state for India. Blunt, like O’Malley, also spent a long term as
a civil servant in India, where his outstanding career included service as a
secretary, census official, and official of the provincial council. But a uniquely
eminent figure was W.H. Moreland, the founder of the science of British public
administration, of whom more later. Moreland attributed the British lag in this
science to the fact that its greatest achievements did not take place on the
home island, but many thousands of miles distant. While the administration of
British towns was staffed by amateurs, India had a professionalized civil
service. Young men were trained specifically to manage public affairs, taking
courses in English composition and the history and literature of England, and all
spoke Greek, Latin, French, German, Sanskrit or Arabic, (Boutmy, 1895: 73,
85); moreover they were also educated in mathematics and science,
philosophy, morals, ethics, political science, English law, political economy, and
ancient and modern history. Before taking office, they had to prove their
knowledge of Indian criminal and civil law, the language of the province where
they were to serve, and the history of British India. The college at Haileybury
was the first of its kind in Europe, with the exception of the German schools,
since it was founded expressly to train not appointed officials or judges, but
career public administrators, in which capacity they governed India. Not a few
Anglo-Indian families even saw the civil service as a career prospect for their

59
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

Indian-born sons, many of whom aspired to return to their native country to


enter the public service because India was their home (Stephen, 1900: 333–
334). They were inspired by a spirit of solidarity which gave rise to what has
been aptly called a “band of brothers.” Herman Finer called attention to the fact
that Great Britain lost its American colonies because of the incompetence of the
team of officials responsible for addressing internal problems and colonial
affairs (Finer, 1934: 759). No such thing happened in India.
In addition, in seventeenth-century India, the British found a public
administration whose principles of action adjusted better to the administrative
regimes that would soon established in France and Prussia; that is, regimes of
highly efficient, bureaucratic administrations. The Mughal Empire had already
established a centralized administration based on the ancient Muslim tradition,
which the Hindus subsequently conserved.

The British turned the wheel of India’s history: the ascent of the diwan in
Bengal in 1765 marked a turning point in the history of public administration in
India, and by extension that of Great Britain, for it represented a significant
change whereby the administrative tasks performed by the Company’s agents
became more important than their commercial tasks. The original business
purpose of the East India Company moved into the background as the company
effectively and officially became a government organization delegated by the
British crown. In 1813, when its charter was reformed, its trade monopoly was
abolished. The process continued in 1833, when it ceased to be a trading
company and began to focus solely on its political and administrative
responsibilities. This historic process culminated in 1858, when the company’s
powers were fully transferred to the crown. So it was that a trading company
chartered in 1601 was transformed into the Secretary of State for India, and the
posts originally termed factories eventually became the offices of the Indian civil
service (Blunt, 1937: 10–11). This enormously important occurrence, by which
the former traders changed into public administrators, took place in three
stages. The first phase was from 1601 to 1740, when the Company, whose
business in this period was primarily related to trade, carried out only minor
administrative tasks. The second period incorporates the years from 1741 to
1833, when its commercial tasks gradually decreased while administrative work
and its importance increased. The final period, lasting from 1834 to 1858, saw
the final transformation of a commercial corporation to a public service
organization. What was once the “privatization” of the state’s mission in a
distant land now encompassed the complete “publicization” of the government’s
commission which, by reason of state, passed into the hands of the crown. By
publicization, we refer to the process by which private companies become
public corporations through the coordination of public administration, such as by
acquisition of shares or by the authority of the state (Ruiz Massieu, 1980: 237).
Privatization further implies recruiting private resources to improve the
performance of tasks that, in a certain sense, will continue being public
(Donahue, 1989: 7).
Such publicization was a necessary consequence of a prior privatization,
in which, according to British tradition, the first steps were not colonization but
expansion of trade. The way they proceeded was therefore by means of a
commercial enterprise under the direction of commercial companies whose

60
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

brand was the East India Company, starting with the monopoly on tea and the
control of all trade from China to Europe (Marx, 1968: I, 639–640). This strategy
led to such extremes that the director of the company was given a share in
private trade and favored trading partners benefited from lucrative contracts
(Marx, undated, A: 352–359, B: 361–367). We will pass over the abuses
inherent in this system, amply discussed by Karl Marx in two articles about
British rule in India, in which he concluded that England had to fulfill the dual
mission of both destroying and building; that is, to annihilate the ancient Asian
society and in its place lay the foundations of Western society.

How right O’Malley was when he expressed his regret that the civil
service of India, then being part of the British administration, was unknown in
his country. Being, along with his country’s civil service, one of the great British
institutions, he wrote his book to inform his fellow British of the Indo-British
legacy of their nation. This was not only a superb public service operating in a
far-flung foreign land, but one of the most important elite civil service
organizations of the world. In 1930, 1,014 civil servants labored in the Indian
administration for the benefit of the metropole.

61
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

The Administrative Revolution

The final phase in the development of British public administration took


place during the first half of the twentieth century, with the emergence of the
administrative revolution, whose effects were felt around the world. In the
previous century, Britain had begun to draw away from its unique and distinctive
system of administration, which contrasted completely, as already noted, with
that of France. At that time the British public service was run by amateurs
recruited through patronage, while France’s public service had been staffed by
professionals since the Revolution. Also, while British public agencies enjoyed
administrative autonomy, the French administration was organized under a
legal hierarchy and worked within formalized patterns. In Britain the entire
emerging public service was incorporated into already existing councils, while in
France, in addition to the Minister of the Interior, the proliferation of
organizations was evident in education and justice, and the Church was
controlled by, or at least managed by the state. While in Britain it was the local
authorities that instituted new public services, in France new organizations had
a national scope. The result was that the autonomous British government
entities were freer, but the French ministries were more powerful because they
were part of an administration that was professional, hierarchical, statist, and
centralized. The “shape” of the British administration –“if shape it could be
called which shape had none, distinguishable in member, form or limb”– was
shapeless and differentiated neither members or structures, for it was
accidental inasmuch as it was amateur (Finer, SE, 1950: 9–10). There was
obviously no pyramidal structure of control because the government was small,
and the local and volunteer corps were multifunctional.

It is true that no state can be very concerned by itself with economic


problems. Paradoxically, Great Britain was the first country to inspect its
factories, which it began to do in 1833. Although in 1900, economic activity was
regarded as private administration under the concept of Adam Smith’s invisible
hand of commerce, not of the state, this must be taken with reservations
because at that time the state was considered only to be a machine that
produces security and justice and receives funds. From the 1950s on, the
British tradition was being revolutionized still further. However, the direction of
this change was not, as commonly believed, towards the American system, with
its federalism, its spoils system and its passion for the private sector, but on the
path toward the traditional French pattern. This process, by which new
characteristics of the British administration were emerging from change, was
caricatured by the United States. By this time, the purview of the state in Britain
and France had broadened considerably, not only in local councils and private
associations, but also in government agencies. These trends were reflected in
the growth of their civil services and increased revenues raised by their
governments (Finer, S.E., 1950: 10). S.E. Finer notes that the size of the
French civil service increased from 90,000 in 1841 to over one million in 1946;
eleven times more than the growth of the country’s population. In Britain it grew
from 17,000 public servants in 1842 to 711,000 in 1949. Even in the U.S., the
civil service grew 100 times faster than the population, which increased only
eightfold. These surprising developments took place with a change in the
pattern of public administration. In all three countries, the administration was

62
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

becoming increasingly professional, organized into a pyramid of authority and of


hierarchy, and the dominant pattern was centralization, leaving autonomy as a
legacy to volunteer or private associations. State enterprises now handled a
wide range of services, and departments were configured to provide
consistency to management supported by a unique unified structure. This was
the revolution, and of course the fact that it happened leads to the question of
why it occurred and what problems it incurred.

It might be regretted that the administrative revolution led to individuals


doing less and the state doing more, but in fact this perspective ignores the
essential issues. We must not forget that during the nineteenth century, in
Britain and indeed in Europe in general, the businessman was victorious and
pulled down the mercantilist barriers raised two centuries earlier; but also that
today, social processes are taking the opposite course. The best way to
understand the optional courses of social evolution can be found in the
“administrative revolution,” which offers a real insight into the problems of public
administration. The term administrative revolution seems to have originated with
S.E. Finer in the mid-twentieth century, well before it was popularized by
Bertram Gross (Gross, 1964). The revolution was caused by large scale factors,
beginning in the mid-twentieth century with the rise of organized labor, to which
the distributive doctrine of socialism and social reforms made a large
contribution. These changes involved not only state control over working hours,
conditions and wages, but also effective state operation of industry (Finer, S.E.,
1950: 11–13). They were the evident result of a decrease in laissez faire and
increased government intervention. The increased subdivision in labor, which
specialized and diversified jobs, must also be taken into account. Finally, a
particular centralized form of intervention must be noted, which itself generates
an increase in the scope of administration.

The growth of government activity and its trend toward centralization


have not been the result of legislators’ whims or an unhealthy growth of
bureaucracy, but of current economic conditions; this is why it is inappropriate
to speak of a “new despotism” or a “road to serfdom”. With this, S.E. Finer is
making direct reference to a book by Friedrich Hayek (The Road to Serfdom),
which had been severely criticized by his brother Herman in a book entitled
Road to Reaction. These problems stem from two main sources: the impact of
the magnitude of state activity, and its direction. This causes problems beyond
their effects on the expression of the public will and the machinery that carries it
out; that is, the public administration (Finer, S.E., 1950: 14–15). The British
central government absorbed activities from three main sources: it carried out
some volunteer activities, it assumed many functions formerly carried out by
local authorities, and it appropriated tasks formerly performed by individuals
either directly or by putting them under its control. All this makes up the
decentralized sector of public administration.
In this way, the direction of state activity affected the nature and
expression of the public will, institutionalized as parties, parliaments and the
civil service. The influence of the magnitude of the modern state and the
direction of the activity it carries out in the implementation of policy deserves
some consideration, which can be summed as the problem that the
departmentalization of public administration creates a large number of

63
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

specialized professions. This gives rise to problems inherent to the study of


public administration, which guide the agenda of scientific research in this area:
the machinery of coordination, the principles of departmentalization,
accountability of the executive to the courts and parliament, provision of expert
knowledge, and the recruitment and retention of qualified personnel in the
public service. But the government does not operate in a vacuum, for it is
instrumental; it is the agent of the public will (Finer, S.E., 1950: 17–18). The
prominent feature was the decline of the legislature as a focus of public will; its
implementation shifted to the executive. Indeed, initiation of policy seems to be
ceaselessly shifted onto the executive, inverting the master–servant relationship
between the public will and the public administration.
As we noted a few pages earlier, in the 1950s the British public
administration was growing to increasingly resemble its counterparts in
Germany and France, a trend that was reinforced in subsequent years, to the
point where its ancient heritage was almost lost. Only at the village level have
strong traces of local autonomy remained, since common law had to give way
to administrative law. In the end, the Roman and Norman heritage emerged
vigorously, to such a degree that the era of privatization and neoliberalism in
the late twentieth century was vanquished by a public administration whose
features show the strength of its organizational and operational muscle.

The events described here give a faithful account of the refinement of the
British administrative state, which still allows glimpses of features of ancient
origin, together with those more recently conceived that yet have similarities
with the ancestral traits, and which come together in perfect harmony. Thus an
unambiguous way to observe the characteristics of an administrative culture in
its maturation from a basic pattern to a progressive development is based on
the administrative state. Indeed, its idea successfully contributes to delineating
when and how a country gives prominence to its public administration. This is
because of certain features that occur only under specific historical conditions.
The time of their appearance and the way they are combined directly and
immediately determine at what point in time a country needs to be publicly
administered.

64
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

Chapter 5

THE BRITISH ADMINISTRATIVE CULTURE

The decisive moment following which Britain needed to be publicly


administered occurred at a point in its recent history when discretion,
administrative law, civil service and public enterprise converged; these were, at
the same time, the elements that formed the basis of its administrative culture.
This convergence had a revolutionary impact on the essence of the previous
administrative life, whose creation was rooted in local administration. Once this
existential focus of British administration had shifted in such a radical way, a
new administrative culture emerged in place of the previous culture; an updated
version that had inherited compatible elements. When all these elements are
present and are combined, an administrative, or, rather organizational or
managerial revolution results, as observed respectively by Bertram Gross,
Kenneth Boulding and James Burnham (Gross, 1964; Boulding, 1953;
Burnham, 1941). In Britain, it was prominent thinkers such as Laski, Robson,
Finer and O'Malley, among other equally notable figures, who identified and
developed the main concepts of the British administrative culture of today,
which also produced decisive effects on the administrative life of the country.

Administrative Discretion

One of the first noticeable signs of the consolidation of the administrative


state in Great Britain was when discretion shifted the process of policy-making
from the area of legislative design to the area of implementation of the law. In
the mid-nineteenth century, Henry Taylor advanced the idea that the erudite
perceive that the essence of political measures lie in their execution (Taylor,
1927). Indeed, those who carefully examine the functioning of the political
machine will not find it difficult to believe, nor will they be amazed at the
changes in its operation since Taylor made his claim. The changes transformed
a state constructed under laissez-faire into a “positive state” when in the 1920s
broad aspects of society came under legislation, the inevitable result of a
corresponding increase in executive power. Since no legislative body can
expect other than to follow the rhythm of the pressures of public business, every
year hundreds of acts of Parliament are issued, which are regarded with
meticulous accuracy insofar as the details of their application. The result stems
precisely from the transfer of much of the control from Parliament to the hands
of the executive departments. Legislation by reference and by delegation has
taken the place of the old order in which each step was regulated with zealous
precision. Indeed, administrative discretion is the essence of the modern state
(Laski, 1923: 92).

Examples of powers transferred to the executive can be seen from 1839


on, when a variety of matters, including both social and industrial issues,
passed into the purview of the executive for implementation. This was a direct
transfer of legislative powers. Everyone connected to public administration
began to be aware of executive control in all matters related to housing,

65
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

education and national health (Laski, 1923: 93–94). But this was not all, for
once the last word against this evolution in public administration was spoken,
the clear and incontrovertible fact was that Parliament could continue to
legislate, but no longer governed. Parliament enabled the work of government,
but the actual execution of orders in their daily application was outside its
scope. Laski said plainly that the House of Commons was essentially a body of
more or less benevolent amateurs, mainly because the majority of the
administrative work was clearly a question of technical expertise. In addition,
there were times when Parliament was not in session and an overriding
decision was needed, and other times when it was meeting and there was no
emergency. In the event of an epidemic, the problem was not one of calling
Parliament into session but of having the power to issue specific orders to the
Ministry of Health. When there is an emergency, it is clear that the executive
must have sufficient liberty to act, because an emergency calls for action, this
being nothing else than the exercise of administrative discretion. It is particularly
clear that in times of industrial war, when essential public services might be
disrupted, the executive’s obligation to intervene should imply the use of much
broader discretion than in any prior era.

This fact, however, had decisive effects on the political life of the nation
that are not always positive. Thus a critical attitude on the part of the
administrator was essential to the success of the democratic enterprise. He held
in his hands, more thoroughly than in times past, the entire substance of the
state. Every growing suppression of public scrutiny was thus a serious
infringement of its freedoms. And so, while democracy means that the
electorate has immediate and continuous contact with the policy process, this
should imply that the process be simple enough to be intelligible to those who
are interested in learning how it operates (Laski, 1923: 100). The test of
institutional health, in fact, lies in its simplicity; but the growth of administrative
discretion came with a complexity that was generally unnecessary and not
infrequently dangerous.
In summary, discretionary processes tend to be legally personified by the
directives of the executive, aimed at the implementation of its mandates, giving
life to administrative law. In Great Britain this particular point has, to date,
caused heated discussion.

66
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

Administrative Law
Until recently it was usual to claim definitively that Great Britain was
fertile soil for the rule of law, not the administrative law (French droit
administratif) well rooted on the continent, an important point that contributes to
an understanding of its current administrative culture.

Indeed, the latter was a taboo subject, mainly because of the devastating
criticism that A.V. Dicey directed at it in his famous book on the British
Constitution (1886). Since then, administrative law was neglected as part of the
legal framework of the country. Government by the rule of law is a singular and
influential approach that runs counter to the political current in Europe. It
deserves a careful examination that begins with the emergence of the rule of
law. Indeed, the rule of law developed in all countries marked by Western
culture, especially Germany, France, Italy and Spain (Train Cuesta, 1961: 19–
20). In contrast, Great Britain developed a variant similar to the meaning of the
continental expression, but with different characteristics, termed the Rule of
Supremacy of Law. Dicey defined it at its origin as follows: this is a system
unique to Great Britain where there is no person who is above the law; that is,
every human being regardless of his social rank is subject to the ordinary law of
the Kingdom and to the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts (Dicey, 1915: 189).

In fact, there has been a tendency on both sides of the Channel to give
priority to the differences between the two legal systems. The prevailing idea is
that as the rule of law developed, two different paths emerged; the first in Great
Britain, where the law governing public administration is the same law that
holds over individuals; while in France the administration is subject to
administrative law (Entrena Cuesta, 1961: 20–21). As a result, given the
uniqueness of each of the two peoples, as well as their historical evolution, the
former system reduced its scope to the English-speaking countries, while the
latter, developed mainly in France, was implemented in continental Europe.
This led to two ways of submitting the public administration to the law; the rule
of law in Britain and administrative law on the continent.
As the administrative system is characterized by the fact that public
administration is subject to administrative law, while the rule of law is subject to
the same law as individuals, the relationship between this administration and
the citizen is different: in the former, administrative courts were established
where disputes between officials and citizens (court of administrative litigation)
are resolved, and public servants enjoy great prominence and respect, and
enjoy their own legal regime as such. In the latter, civil servants are subject to
the same courts as individuals, enjoy the same reputation as any other worker,
and do not receive any legal privileges deriving from their official role. Despite
these differences, it should be noted that there is a similarity between the two
legal systems, beginning with their abrupt birth and swift growth in France and
Great Britain alike, where the end of absolutism facilitated the rapid
development of the rule of law in two variants. Great Britain was the scene of
the Glorious Revolution in 1689, a century prior to France’s revolution in 1789
(Entrena Cuesta, 1961: 19–20). The result of the two events can be traced to
the same fact; that is, that public administration was subject to the law. This

67
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

calls for a search for a different focus than the usual approach which contrasts
the two legal systems.

As we noted some pages earlier, by the time the eighth edition of Dicey’s
book was published (1925), Britain had changed substantially. The first half of
the twentieth century was marked by development of the judicial power within
administrative departments, and by the creation of administrative courts outside
the judicial bodies involved in civil, judicial and labor matters (Robson, 1951:
XIII–XIV). What is more, the new courts were not only unrelated to any of these
judicial bodies, but also operated outside their control. This substantiates the
fact that the constitution of Great Britain has a body of administrative law, or
administrative justice, as it could be more properly termed. This body of law
reveals a rupture that goes beyond the rule of law formulated by Dicey a long
time ago, since the new phenomenon represents a substantial change in the
pattern of the constitutional system which existed at the time and extended
forward into our time. It also involves a matter of great importance for the
country's government, since it concerns both constitutional law and political
science.
Until recently, Great Britain did not classify law according to the
relationships it governed, with the result that the term administrative law had
little meaning. However, although since the late nineteenth century one could
properly speak of “administration” as a function of government, and of the
executive, there were hardly any British jurists that recognized the existence of
a branch of law called administrative law. This would explain why Dicey claimed
that in Great Britain and the countries whose civilization is derived from its
origins, the system of administrative law is unknown. But he was mistaken, for
he attempted rather to deny the existence of administrative law in its true
continental sense, by wrongly disqualifying what he understood as the French
droit administratif. Thus, what was lacking in Great Britain was not
administrative law but a comprehensive classification of the law, because
administrative law in the genuine continental sense of the word has not only has
always existed in both countries, but had perhaps more influence on Anglo
Saxon political development than did any other branch of English law
(Goodnow, 1897: I, 6–8).

This is the reason why since the late nineteenth century, thanks to a
growing interest in administrative issues in Europe, the term administrative law
(a French expression) has been gradually infiltrating the British legal
vocabulary. Thus, administrative law is that part of the law governing the
relations between the executive and administrative government authorities
(Goodnow, 1897: I, 8). Hence it is a part of public law, its subject being the rules
of law concerning the administrative function. Also, since the fulfillment of this
task depends on the existence of administrative authorities who are collectively
called the “administration,” administrative law refers not only to relations among
the administrative authorities themselves but also to their organization. Finally,
administrative law prescribes the positions that make up the administration and
the relations of those who occupy them.

Dicey took the term droit administratif from France and gave it a wrong,
even deliberately harmful meaning. To this end, he adopted the definition of

68
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

administratif droit from Léon Aucoc. In this sense, it meant the constitution and
the relations between the societal bodies responsible for safeguarding collective
interests which are the object of public administration; and the relationship of
the administrative authorities with respect to citizens and the state (Finer, 1949:
923–924). Although it provides a clear definition of the object it is meant to
define, in Dicey’s work the aim to find a detrimental meaning of droit
administratif can be observed when he claims that definitions of this type
require precision, while despite its vagueness, it is not unimportant (Dicey,
1915: 328).
Dicey next proceeds to reject any comparison between France and
Britain in 1905, the year his book was published, and then insists on distorting
the definition until he has turned droit administratif into a body of rules for the
protection of officials who commit abuses of power against citizens. His
opinions are astonishing: the fourth most despotic characteristic of droit
administratif stems from its tendency to protect from the supervision or control
of the lower court any servant of the state guilty of a potentially illegal act as
long as he was acting in good faith and obeying his superiors, at least in
intention, in the execution of his official duties (Dicey, 1915: 341). At the end of
his discourse, the droit administratif appears only as generalizations of the
judgments laid down in special courts –the tribunaux administratifs– for officials
in their relations with the public.

But obviously this is not the true meaning of administrative law (droit
administratif, derecho administrativo or Verwaltungsrecht). When H. Berthélemy
refers to droit administratif, he attributes the correct meaning to it: administrative
services are all services (except justice itself) that contribute to the execution of
the law, and administrative law is the set of principles by which this activity is
carried out. Administrative law analyzes the mechanism of the governmental
machine; constitutional law shows how the apparatus is constructed. The
subject of administrative law is how the machinery operates; how each of its
parts function (Berthélemy, 1926: 1–2). It can be concluded that this definition
implies no threat whatsoever, and that administrative law is nothing mysterious
or sinister, but merely the law related to public administration.

Since this legal body exists in Great Britain, it can be deduced that where
there are administration and law, there is administrative law, which implies
statutes, conventions, and legal cases of the ordinary and special courts. Like
the German term Verwaltungsrecht, administrative law is the legal order of
relations between the administrative state and its subjects. Taking the
legitimacy of the term from its country of origin as a basis, the meaning of the
term “administrative law” in Great Britain is also consistent with Port’s concept:
administrative law consists of all legal standards –whether expressed formally in
legislation or implied in prerogative– whose ultimate purpose is the enforcement
of public law. It is chiefly Parliament that is responsible for formally expressed
standards; they are generally decreed by that body. The judiciary is then
responsible for the standards (statutes and prerogatives) that govern judicial
acts, which may be in favor of or against the administration, and matters
relating to administrative bodies which sometimes can exercise judicial power.
Thirdly, it is directly related to the practical application of the law (Finer, 1949:
924).

69
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

This topic has been treated in detail to make it clear that Great Britain
does have administrative law, because this is not only a clear manifestation of
public administration as such, but also shows that what it accomplishes is
subject to statutory law as the basis of its discretionary powers.

70
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

The Civil Service


By reason of its peculiar constitutional development, for many years
different from that of continental Europe, for centuries Great Britain was
resistant to a professionally trained bureaucracy, in fact, until mid-1853. Despite
the establishment of the civil service, the processes of centralization, and the
broadening of government activity, the expansion of bureaucracy remained a
subject of heated controversy, even among the nation’s most enlightened
minds, such as Mill and Bagehot. This central theme is one of the largest
observable changes in the British administrative culture, under the weight of
historical circumstances.
It would not be unreasonable to credit John Stuart Mill as being the
British liberal thinker most devoted to the study of public administration, as
readily seen in some of his works; one of which was, in fact, devoted to the
study of government (Mill, 1958). Nor should we be surprised that the
nineteenth-century liberal thinker tackled the subject of bureaucracy. Mill made
a systematic study of the subject in a meticulous review in his famous essay on
liberty. In it, he displays knowledge on state intervention, placing the problem of
public administration at its core. It is also important to note that Mill served for
35 years (1823–1858) as an official of the East India Company, where he
worked his way upwards. His administrative career ended when the Company
was dissolved. This fact is particularly significant, because at the time, the
Company had grown into a type of quasi-governmental organization, in which
Mill acted as a genuine civil servant, since the administrative career had been
established in 1853. But he later left administration forever, to dedicate himself
fully to his academic work.

His bitter attack on the civil service in his book on freedom (Mill, 1975),
was radically reconsidered two years later, when he changed his mind to view
the British civil service positively (Mill, 1958). He highlighted tenure as one of its
particular advantages, since one of the virtues of popular government lies in the
fact that public officials are not appointed or elected by the voters.
Appointments must be entrusted to people who have the skills required of the
candidates, since it is a question of their professional skills and experience. The
rule, therefore, is that civil servants are appointed by means of public
competitions and those who are not, are freely appointed by government
ministers. The dividends of this system are that these officials are immune to
the virus of political change, remaining in their positions and serving as a
memory and a link to administrative matters for new ministers after a change of
government. The fact that they rise according to their own merits motivates their
performance, and makes it harmful for them to be removed from office, except
for serious cause. Mill explained that it is better to base candidate selection on
merit and open competition than to rely on partiality and self-interest.
Unlike Mill, Walter Bagehot professes a strict and unwavering faith in
liberal thought, noting that there is a tendency towards bureaucracy in his
country, an idea that could thrive even though the people do not consent easily
to shedding their ingrained beliefs. Thus, like any major event in Europe that
temporarily turns it towards other ideas, the success of the Prussian

71
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

administration of the day invoked great admiration for its bureaucracy,


something previously unthinkable in Great Britain. In spite of the fact that
Prussia was “the bureaucratic nation par excellence,” Bagehot did not set out to
criticize it, although he believed that its administration was not only
disagreeable to foreigners, but also an object of complete satisfaction to the
liberal Prussians who observed its operation at home (Bagehot, 1867: 138). He
leans towards subscribing to an administration based on a liberal system
embracing all the details of the administration, in order to avoid the
development of a corps of rude, routine-bound officials, that tends to neutralize
individual initiative by improper means.

Many British thinkers long boasted that their country had freed itself of
bureaucracy. But as the years ran their course, up to the present, a
bureaucracy as typical and representative as any on the continent was
conceived and developed in Britain. This was the British civil service; the
institution and mandate offered by Great Britain to the entire world. So the
proliferation of books devoted specifically to explaining the principal problems
and development of public administration from the bureaucratic angle is not
surprising, because these consider the civil service as the emergence of a
distinct profession regarded as the classic profession; that is, with self
recruitment, self-discipline, self-government, and substantial efforts to prevent
outsiders from intervening in its affairs (Chapman, 1970: 43). An emblematic
text that invokes the “portrait of a profession” rings unequalled adulation of what
in Great Britain eventually came to be one of the most prestigious occupations
and whose gifts enable the conception of its own administrative philosophy. In
its pages, Norman Bridges set out to paint a picture of senior Whitehall officials;
that is, those who handle administration issues in general and formulate policy,
simultaneously portraying the most faithful portrait of British administrative
culture (Bridges, 1971: 50).

The role of the civil service in the modern state consists mainly in
improving government, because without the civil service, government itself
would be impossible. The civil service is a professional body of permanent
officials and employees, created expressly to properly and competently carry
out the function of administration. Their numerical strength is determined by the
activities of the state because it is a sign of its nature and development. Since
the early twentieth century, the number of public employees –including both the
central and local government as well as public corporations– was one in ten
professionals in the United States, and one in five in Britain, France and
Germany. In fact, institutions are neither more nor less than the men
themselves, and no institution can be better than the quality of its personnel
(Finer, 1949: 709, 712). The civil service is, more than other political institutions,
a product of the intellectual factors of Western civilization. This was confirmed in
the nineteenth century, when a massive body of public servants had already
been established, who gradually replaced the untrained, barely literate unpaid
employees. State activities grew enormously, along with a “managerial class”
needed to perform them, although Finer claims to have coined a similar term
some ten years before James Burnham did so (Burnham, 1946).

The public administration of a society varies according to its degree of


complexity; that is, according to the division of labor and organization, requiring

72
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

the use of experts fully dedicated to public administration. These are mainly civil
servants, a corps of experts granted the authority to implement policy for the
benefit of society. The existence of the civil service, inherent in the modern
state, can be explained simply by the need for gifted people who have the
knowledge that ministers lack, because the latter, whose natural locus is
parliamentary activity, do not have the ability or cognizance of the functioning of
the administrative machinery (Finer, 1927: 14–15). The civil service is a
substantial part of the “gigantic ministrant state,” primarily because the great
quantity of secondary legislation demands timely, daily and immediate
implementation, impossible without a stable professional corporation. The “night
watchman state”, as conceived by Ferdinand Lassalle, has no resemblance to
the ministrant state, which not only guarantees order and imparts justice, but
also takes every sort of measure to provide both social and individual welfare.

Civil service is the most important topic in British administrative thought.


Just as in France there is no respectable professor of public administration who
has not written a text on administrative law, in Great Britain there is no noted
professor of the subject who has not published a book on the civil service. Even
treatises on bureaucracy tend to treat it within the field of service. Bureaucracy
is clearly indispensable in modern government. This is due not only to methods
of working and administration, but also in order to improve recruitment of
administrative personnel through merit and not nepotism, and because it
stimulates the rational carrying out of public administration. Bureaucracy, in
short, brings great advantages to modern public fulfillment. It has received no
shortage of severe criticism, but it is certainly important. There is generally
assumed to be a natural opposition between democracy and bureaucracy, but
this has been clearly disproved by Charles Hyneman. In his book, he claims
that an examination of bureaucracy should not necessarily start with its size or
cost, as there are more important issues, such as topics relating to government
control over bureaucrats (Robson, 1956: 3–4). If public administration is
irresponsible, it is not because of its size, but for other types of reasons. Neither
its size nor its great size are, therefore, as important as thought by some.
Moreover, bureaucracy has often been quantified by observing the proliferation
of government department administrative units or the number of their
employees, but neither does this confer a good understanding of it, nor does
analyzing bureaucracy by comparing its numbers with percentages of the total
population. In fact, the results are different for each of these criteria.
When bureaucracy is analyzed by its size, according to the different
measures noted, this is often a reaction to proposals by opponents of the
modern state such as those in charge of large-scale social programs. Their
assessments are based on mistaken claims about bureaucratic activities, which
they observe through distorted lenses. With respect to its relationship to
democracy, it must be borne in mind that the bureaucracy is not necessarily
opposed to democratic development when this is embodied in parliamentary
regimes. For example, Germany had established a powerful administrative
system before it developed its parliamentary system, and although it had great
difficulty controlling ministers and their colleagues, this does not mean that it
was impossible for democracy to develop (Robson, 1956: 3–4). The relationship
between democracy and bureaucracy can be substantially improved when the
civil service is prevented from developing privileged castes. For example, in

73
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

Britain the London School of Economics has opened its doors to a multitude of
students from a variety of social classes, a strategy also followed by the
Administrative Staff College. Preference is given to merit and ability, not to the
social status of the student. It is also necessary to improve the lines of
communication between the governors and the governed in order that they can
participate in exercising control over the bureaucracy. Lastly, it is important to
provide entry to the civil service to people who are not professional politicians or
civil servants, but lay people who can infuse it with qualities and experiences
other than those found in political and public administration circles, particularly
in the administrative departments that oversee education, health, labor and
social security. This is the best way to make the civil service increase its
competence, responsiveness and accountability.
Such ideas were unthinkable a century ago, when Britain was
experiencing the end of its administrative childhood, and the subject of
bureaucracy was taboo. The study of administrative personnel, whether called
civil service or bureaucracy, has not only dominated in Great Britain, but Great
Britain has been the country that has contributed the most to its study around
the world in the past century. Great Britain’s isolation was dissolved forever,
mainly because European modernization gradually assimilated the
administrative cultures of the continental nations. Just as Brian Chapman
observed that the Napoleonic public administration was as strong, cohesive and
connected as the Roman model (Chapman, 1970: 26), today we can say that
the British administration is as strong, cohesive and connected as that of its
neighbors.

74
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

The Public Corporation

Great Britain is a country of entrepreneurship, of the “invisible hand of


the market,” of the industrial revolution and of laisser faire, laisser passer. A
land that resists state intervention and administrative interference, Great Britain
is the European nation that established or nationalized the largest number of
productive and service public companies in the shortest time and on an
unparalleled scale.
British authors in the early twentieth century were among the first to
publish scientific studies of an emerging administrative entity; the public
company. The reasons must be sought in the economic boom stimulated by the
industrial revolution. Its impact on local administration was felt immediately,
since these types of corporations assumed the provision of modern public
services. A corporation was created particularly to deliver emerging public
services of gas, water, electricity and transport to Great Britain. As with other
types of companies, original studies were soon made of the public company as
a modern organization distinct from a private company.

Municipal utility companies are unique in themselves, unlike private or


other companies, mainly because they were born in an era in which consumer
control over privately provided services provided by individuals had diminished
or been removed entirely, replaced by government regulation (Finer, 1941: 18,
31–32). In the new environment, the concept of “success” –which can be
“efficiency”– is not comparable between the private sector and the municipal
corporation, because in the former success is measured against the
competition and determined by prices, costs and earnings. The efficient
corporation is the corporation that meets demand. In contrast, since the
municipal corporation is a monopoly, there is no point to applying these
measures because it does not operate in a market or competitive system, but is
an instrument of policy.

It is paradoxical that one of the most powerful forces of nationalization in


Britain emerged at the local level, so well-regarded for self-government and
citizen participation, for it was there that the seeds of the first public companies
were planted and grew copiously between 1882 and 1894 (Grove, 1962: 25). It
was a time aptly termed “municipal socialism” by the Webb Society, a great
promoter of the movement for nationalization of the gas and water supply. By
the late nineteenth century, 170 towns throughout Britain had formed municipal
enterprises. Most were in the north, and expanded their business to electricity
and coal, setting the pattern for a new type of municipal management.

One of the characteristic features of British public administration, local


autonomy, was so deeply impacted by the establishment of municipal
corporations that, aided by a process of mutual imitation of continental nations,
this feature in its purest form was fading away by the early twentieth century.
The fact was clearly observed by Georg Jellinek, who noted that this mutual
assimilation was culminating in a blend of union and two-way penetration
(Jellinek, 2000). The European administrative culture is largely a product of that
fact.

75
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

State intervention did not remain anchored in the provision of important


local public services, but expanded into the ownership, operation or control of
services and industries, becoming a global movement by the mid-1960s
(Robson, 1960: 17). The trend is evident not only in highly developed Western
countries, but also in the underdeveloped regions of Asia and Africa. It was
even the dominant feature of communist regimes as well as a prominent
characteristic of democracies, although they claimed to be based on private
enterprise or a mixed economy. The scale of this movement was extraordinary,
its diversity astonishing, and its political, economic and social importance
undeniable.
At the time, the new phenomenon had not yet been satisfactorily defined,
since the industries or services considered to be “public utilities” varied from
country to country. The concept includes two conditions; the first, that the
service should be regarded as so essential as to require public intervention,
ownership or management; the second that the service must be monopolistic.
The first condition requires that it be essential, a judgment that depends on
circumstances inherent in time and space, the degree of economic and
technical development, social habits, and popular psychology (Robson, 1960:
17–18). The luxuries of one era can become the essential needs of the next,
while services unanimously considered as public can later become the luxuries
of the wealthy. There is no question that water, gas, electricity and ports are
undoubtedly public services. Public transport and telecommunications, while not
as essential as these, could be added to the list.

It must be noted that the public company is not an entirely new


institution. Even long ago there were numerous official bodies that carried out
government functions with varying degrees of independence from the executive
and various state departments under the direct control of ministers of the crown.
These include the Public Trustee, the Charity Commission, and Trinity House.
There are also agencies carrying out specialized technical functions, such as
the Tithe Redemption Commission, the Air Registration Board and the Medical
Research Council. There are organizations devoted to cultural activities, such
as the Arts Council, the British Council, the great national museums and
scientific collections, and the Public Record Office. Finally, there are agencies
which appear dependent on and are almost integrated into the departments of
state, such as the Prison Commissioners, the General Register Office, the
Commissioners for Crown Lands, and the State Management Districts for
Liquor Control in Carlisle. An essential feature of these bodies is that they were
created to carry out specialized missions free of direct executive control by the
ministers, though often subject to their influence or their decisions on policy
issues. All these institutions, however, are a phenomenon completely different
from that of emerging public companies, which were aimed at managing large
nationalized industries and services.

The reason these modern public companies was created lies in the need
of the administration of industrial and business firms to display a high degree of
freedom, initiative and entrepreneurial spirit, liberating them from the inherent
restraint on government departments. Moreover, they were also a large-scale
experiment in the country’s economic and social reform. This consisted of
nationalization of industries and basic services to promote progress in a rapidly

76
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

modernizing country. Their nature is singular, since they are created to fulfill two
aims; to meet the public interest, and to operate efficiently –two often opposed
goals, which government ministers must reconcile (Robson, 1970: 80).
It is useful to examine this significant process, because the names of the
companies point clearly to which industries were nationalized. It took place in
two stages, the first of which was preceded in 1908 by the creation of the Port
of London Authority, which up to that point was the only case prior to World War
I. The following year saw the creation of the Electricity Commission and the
Forestry Commission (Robson, 1960: 48–50). The British Broadcasting
Corporation and the Central Electricity Board were founded in 1926, and two
years later the Racecourse Betting Control Board was created. In 1933 the
London Passenger Transport Board was created, and in 1939 the British
Overseas Airways Corporation.

The second stage was launched with the return of a Labour government
to power in 1945. With the 1946 Bank of England Act, the capital of the Bank of
England became public property and fell under government control. The same
year, the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act nationalized public ownership and
management of the coal industry. To this end, the act established the National
Coal Board to manage coal mining and processing in Britain (Robson, 1960:
50–55). The 1946 Civil Aviation Act established three airlines (in place of the
BOAC) with exclusive rights to cover air passenger services within the UK and
on international routes. It also gave the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation
authority over civilian airports and over building new ones when needed. The
1947 Transport Act nationalized the railways and inland waterways, including
the network of hotels and restaurants owned by the railroads. All passenger
transport in London was placed under ownership and management of the
Transport Commission by the 1933 London Passenger Transport Act. In 1946,
the Commission acquired the long-distance goods transport companies. The
1947 Electricity Act completed the nationalization of electricity (begun in 1926),
through the creation of the Central Electricity Board to oversee the construction
and management of the power system known as the “grid.” The 1948 Gas Act
put the entire gas industry under public ownership, although about a third of it
had already been in the hands of the municipalities and two thirds controlled by
public utility companies. The nationalized industry was placed under the
National Gas Council. The 1946 New Towns Act authorized the Minister of
Housing and local governments to build new urban developments both in
undeveloped areas and in places where there were already small towns or
villages. Fourteen development companies were created under the act. Lastly,
the 1949 Iron and Steel Act restored the Iron and Steel Corporation of Great
Britain, and transferred 96 designated iron and steel companies to the
corporation. The Forestry Commission is a special case; having been created in
1919 it should belong to the first stage, but it is considered under the second
stage because it was in 1945 that it became a public company of the type of the
companies listed above.

The nationalizations even transcended ideological differences between


Labour and the Conservatives, for the latter created the Central Electricity
Generating Board (1926) and established a government airline (1939) (Aharoni,
1992: 36–37).

77
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

Since then, Great Britain has moved away from the group of nations
characterized by the purity of their market economy to join those who have
established a powerful state capitalism.

The development of the British public corporation took place in a context


of worldwide development of governments, especially visible from 1930 to
1945. Nationalization in Great Britain touched gasoline, energy and transport,
as well as banking, steel and the metal industry. Indeed, the public corporation
has arrived in Britain; its merits are recognized by all parties, despite the
differences of opinion between labour, liberals and conservatives (Robson,
1947: 161–162). But the effect was extensive, since nationalization involved the
central public administration, which saw the emergence of new ministries of gas
and energy civil administration, food, housing and urban planning.
Nationalization consisted not only of the existence and usefulness of a new
administrative institution, but the effect of a considered policy because all
parties contributed to the evolution of the public corporation. The new entity
stirred the enthusiasm of the British people, for it was conceived as an essential
government function. Performance evaluations were highly satisfactory in terms
of technical and economic capacity, since the benefits extended to a large
number of users at affordable prices under a self-financing scheme.
In the face of such significant increases in the central administration,
there was no shortage of proposals that a ministry of nationalized industries be
established to guide their activities, choose their executives, give opinions on
their price systems, and introduce necessary managerial reforms, but these
proposals were not implemented (Robson, 1970: 86), unlike Italy and Mexico. In
fact, the worldwide scope of these developments aroused the interest of many
men of science, to the extent that that for theorists and practitioners of public
administration, Great Britain is still a “theater of operations” of intense interest.

Discretion, administrative law, civil service and the British public


corporation are features of an administrative state as genuine as that in
Germany or France, and, therefore, of the peculiar character of the
administrative culture of this island people.

78
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

Local Administration and Centralization

The extent of the transformation undergone by the former administration


is more visible in the local administration than in any other aspect of public
administration, primarily because it enables us to look into both the perpetuation
and transformation of the administrative culture. In this regard, a notable book
points out the decisive weight that administrative culture has in each country, as
can be seen in its pages, and even more in its long title. It discusses the
dangers of disunity between the central and local administration in Great
Britain, with particular regard to the cities. Hence the idea of what Edwin
Chadwick calls a “new centralization for the people,” together with improved
legislation and codification procedures (Chadwick, 2009: 77).

The author was an experienced public administrator who served on the


Royal Commission of Enquiry on the Poor Laws, and on the Factories Inquiry
Commission and the inquiry on Metropolitan Health. He was also the first
commissioner of the General Board of Health. We should not forget that he was
also a corresponding member of the Institut de France, as this attests to his
substantial knowledge on administrative problems and his constant references
to administrative science. In a preface to his book, he expressed the hope that
the unhappy experiences of local government in Great Britain would avoided by
the statesmen who governed the colonies.

Like many other authors, Edwin Chadwick made frequent reference to


the 1833 Poor Law, which represented a watershed in the history of British
administration, because from that point on the administration perceptively
decreased its involvement at the local level and substantially increased
centralization. An interesting fact worth emphasizing is that while in Ireland the
law achieved greater success in combating poverty, the rest of the UK fell
woefully behind in this respect. This was because Ireland was under central
supervision from London, while the principle of local government remained in
force in the rest of the kingdom (Chadwick, 2009: 9). The advantages of
centralization were also perceptible in the administration of roads, the police
service, prevention of begging and vagrancy, and other areas of administrative
action related to the meeting of social needs.

This reform reached such heights that by the last third of the nineteenth
century the word “local self-government” had lost its essence, and one thinker
declared his profound disenchantment with the regime (Chadwick, 2009: 27–
28). It had reached the point where the term local self-government meant direct
individual local knowledge of the affairs of the neighborhood administrative unit
and taxpayer participation in the spending of their own money. From its vital
principle emerged a set of agencies whose basic organization was often the
board, whose foundation is the neighborhood which, in its role of paying taxes
for local spending, delegated it the exercise of expenditure. However, this
apparently simple issue ignores the basic principles of economy and the
meaning of administration as provider of public services, as was evident in
Ireland (but not in the rest of the UK) where the establishment of a central
management institution for the administration was successful. However, the

79
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

board system; that is, a network of unrelated collegial agencies, rendered


ineffective a proper evaluation that would always require uniformity.

Self-government led to increasingly frequent meetings of town residents,


to the point of neglecting their private affairs to attend to public matters, but in
the end they also gradually abandoned these. To remedy this problem, they
resorted to people who were incompetent in administrative matters. Over time,
their shortcomings could only lead to increased deficiencies; since these people
had a complete lack of knowledge of the science of administration.

What the United Kingdom then required was unity, which is only possible
when the same thing is done the same way throughout the country. This was
precisely what was done in Ireland but not in England, Wales or Scotland.
Hence this successful experience would mean abolishing the position of Lord
Lieutenant –who transmitted royal authority by appointing local officials– due to
the undesirability of the position in a centralized system. Its persistence would
mean the continuation of the old systems of useless legislation, as evidenced
by the opinion of a former commissioner responsible for the implementation of
the Poor Law in England, and who later served as a commissioner of the Local
Government Board for Ireland (Chadwick, 2009: 28, 29–30). The Lord
Lieutenant represented the purest medieval conception of the rule of law, while
centralized direction would have the advantage of being constituted as a
“national government,” since specialized branches based on unity can be
organized, eliminating the disadvantages of the disunity evident in the kingdom.
Such an arrangement could cover the entire United Kingdom, could also be set
up at the local level, where cities would be administered based on that unity, as
well as the county, the medieval administration being abolished forever. An
administrative organization based on boards or commissions implies
unsystematic, chaotic provision of services. It should be replaced by a body of
scientifically competent officials, whose centralized organization operates
synchronously and uniformly.

According to Chadwick, the term “centralization” was misinterpreted,


being considered as inherent only to government when in fact it could be
applied beneficially to the population’s affairs in general. Hence, for example,
while a deficient centralization might be observed in France, the same could be
said of the United Kingdom’s decentralization. In the France of Napoleon
Bonaparte, centralization did not operate in the people’s favor, but against
them, having been established to ensure military power, conscription and tax
collection. An interesting quote cited by Chadwick is from a famous French work
on centralization by M. Odilon Barrot, to which the former dedicated a few lines
and a direct quote. Clearly Chadwick’s attention was drawn to Odilon Barrot’s
work because of the deep meaning that the latter gave to centralization, which
he considered inherent in any society and part of human harmony, together with
sociability and liberty (Barrot, 1861: 31). Chadwick also observed poor
decentralization in the United States of America, to which he devoted several
pages to extend his criticisms to the self-government established there
(Chadwick, 2009: 77, 80–81, 83–84). In this country, too, knowledge was
excluded from local government, and replaced by interests and concern for
private affairs. Centralization for the people arose from pressure by the
impoverished classes, who cry for the need for more centralization; that is, more

80
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

inspection and regulation of the workplace, more supervision of health


inspections in their humble homes to examine their of sewage and water supply
conditions. But Parliament was adverse to such measures, as were local
administrators, many of them being shopkeepers and business owners also
obviously opposed to them.

The new age was opposed not only to local self-government, but also to
laisser faire, laisser passer, an axiom emanating from economic policy that had
been extended to public administration, whose negative effect was particularly
noticeable in the administration of local services, such as those relating to the
water supply and health. Some of his axioms were declared against
centralization, arguing that public services based on administrative unity violate
natural liberty. However, Chadwick did not find any precise definition of natural
liberty. It is true that this liberal axiom was invoked when it comes to aspects of
the economy, such as those relating to trade and the navy, but the author
considered it inapplicable to public services because it was not a question of
obstructions to the free market nor to trade. In fact, laisser faire, laisser passer
was magnified towards aspects of society that had little or nothing to do with its
assumptions (Chadwick, 2009: 95, 99).

Centralization, since then, became the subject of a failed reform, despite


the existence of a long-standing need for local administration to be transformed,
certainly since the beginning of the twentieth century. Although it was a hoped
for process, the reform fell into a state of stagnation. A typical process can be
observed at the time, that moved from a period of intense decentralization to a
new path that led in the opposite direction to centralization (Robson, 1966: 13–
25). It was a question of “devolution” of a group of matters from the local level
that were raised to the national level. It can be seen, thus, how functions long
ago put under local administration were transferred to the national government,
due to the incompetence of the former and their inability to carry them out
efficiently and consistently. This was the case of transportation services, roads,
hospitals and public assistance. The devolution process also included the
transfer of local companies traditionally responsible for passenger
transportation services and roads; and extended to water, electricity and gas.

The processes of returning functions to the central government are


notable, and what is perceptible is the need for stable and efficient public
services, but mostly overall coverage that includes the entire network of
communities, whether it is their hospitals or their roads. But what singularly
stands out is the issue of public assistance, which again takes us back to the
Poor Law of 1833. Centralization was normally preceded by a parliamentary
decree; for example, the Transport Act 1947. By 1960, that set of activities
formerly performed by the local government had almost completely reverted
back to the national government. The same year, the Electricity Council and the
Central Electricity Generating Board were established to centralize service.

Reversion in Great Britain was so extensive that the supply of drinking


water, for example, formerly 80% controlled by local governments, was
transferred to the central government, as it had become a general public
service. Also, the devolution of functions and public companies came to mean a
change in the concept of the local area as a locus for the provision of public

81
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

services in Great Britain, which most people, among them the socialists,
regarded as a substantial part of the country’s identity.

Unthinkable before the 1960, from that time on centralization began to be


defined as a topic of public administration. In fact, Robson notes that there are
two types of centralization in Great Britain. The first is the transfer of functions
from local authorities to central government departments or similar bodies, as
was the case of roads, hospitals and public assistance. The second type
involves transferring services and companies to ad hoc administrative bodies
with a variable degree of central control (Robson, 1966: 47). Thus control,
monitoring, supervision and inspection are new vocabulary entering the lexicon
of British administrative studies.

Local administration, which Robson seldom calls “self-government,” was


already so far from being the vital principle of public administration in Britain,
that at the end of his book he outlines a set of principles by which the local
governments should adjust themselves according to the central government.
The central government should thus ensure that the local government
organization is able to perform the role expected of it, the organization being
defined as the status, areas, resources, powers, and relationships of local
government authorities. This being the conception of the local organization, the
central government expropriates its independent power to construct itself as it
had done since ancient times, to now mandate the design from London.
Moreover, along with Parliament, the central government should set the broad
lines of policy that the local government must follow to ensure that it properly
provides adequate services. The most important public services provided by the
local administration would be supervised by central departments to ensure a
minimum standard of quality. The central government would also contribute to
the development of improved administration of local agencies, especially those
dedicated to administrative research and information services. Local
administration would retain tax functions, leaving the Exchequer a subsidiary
role of supplementing income, which would never exceed subsidies raised by
local government. While the local government would contribute 60% of income,
the Exchequer would provide only 40% (Robson, 1966: 149–150). Lastly, local
authorities would retain a large degree of freedom to search for new directions
based on the current situation at the time.

However, a strong, vigorous essence of “self-government” still remained,


especially since few people in the 1960s did not understand the new role of
local government in the welfare state; the neighborhood meeting not only
brought people together for civic activities, but continued to be the community’s
arena for executive decision-making. Self-government restricted the exercise of
citizens’ rights and responsibilities, which is significant, but as its administrative
function decreased, this was gradually entrusted more and more to the central
government and professional administrators.
It appears that the British will never relinquish self-government, however
diluted it becomes. William Robson himself, who portrays its ghostly expression,
observed, quite rightly, that a body that can be reanimated if it keeps the spirit
from which the need for a broad separation of powers sprang, along a

82
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

democratic line. He viewed local life as the polity of the British nation, and
considered that it would remain so forever.

Chapter 6

BRITISH ADMINISTRATIVE CULTURE AND THE


NEOMANAGERIAL MENACE

Over the past three decades, a powerful privatization movement


emerged in Great Britain, which affected not only the country but the entire
world, persisting and culminating in what was called the “new public
management.” Many of the changes that the British government underwent
after 1945, particularly relating to the loss of independent military capacity, the
dismantling of its empire, the transfer of power to the European Union, and
successive outflows of power to local government, led to the transformation of
various roles in what was once a united national political system. The British
state sought new tasks to replace those of the past, functions characteristic of
the imperium concept that made the old decision-makers into litigators or policy
implementers while the central government took over the provision of public
services previously performed by local authorities.
So matters stood when the “age of privatization” emerged in Great Britain
with the coming to power of the Conservative Party under the leadership of
Margaret Thatcher.

The Privatization of Public Administration

Between 1945 and 1951, Great Britain was fertile ground for publicization
on a large scale, through the wave of Labour nationalizations that did not
recede until it crested in 1979, as its platform made evident (Vickers and
Yarrow, 1991). However, the Conservative victory in that year initiated a
tsunami in the opposite direction, which constituted a decisive turning point in
the history of British public administration.

The 1980s were considered the age of privatization; or so proclaimed the


enthusiasts of these measures that effectively reduced state activity. And
particularly the figure who designed and led Great Britain’s privatization
program, which he called a “new world”. This was Madsen Pirie, professor of
philosophy and president of Adam Smith Institute, chief architect of the program
which the Prime Minister commissioned to an expert . His approach is revealed
in the title of one of his books; “Dismantling the State” (Pirie, 1985: 24–25). In
one part of his book, Pirie defines privatization as the total or partial transfer of
public activities to the private sector arising from an acknowledgment of the
government’s inherent shortcomings as a public provider; this change from a
public to a private economy transfers the focus from supply to demand. It was
then that the British government took that path, implementing 22 specific
privatization measures which in the Thatcher era meant the largest transfer of
property since Henry VIII expropriated the Catholic monasteries. However,

83
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

considering the overall process, privatization is not a method but an approach


by which things that the state used to carry out are done in the market (Pirie,
1988: 3, 11–12), and which we consider as a neoliberal ideological framework.

The Conservative party platform did not originally use the term
“privatization” and proposed only the sale of the shipyards, the aerospace
industry and the National Freight Corporation. The process started with a dozen
sections of public companies of which the government successfully divested
itself. Privatization and its techniques, thus, emanate from principles of practice
rather than an ideological victory taken from the “world of ideas” (Pirie, 1988:
10, 14, 255–256). The infant born in Great Britain soon spread throughout the
world to countries at all degrees of development and with all types of regimes.
British privatization left a lesson for the whole world: that there is no corner of
the public sector that can not be invaded, which in Great Britain included health,
education, national defense, and the ports, among others.

The atmosphere of privatization spread to such a degree that


commissions and ministries of privatization were created within the public
administration. There was no country that was not privatizing or aspiring to do
so as fast as it could. Experts on the subject offered themselves as advisors,
lecturers and writers, as well as others whose skills were focused on consulting.
The privatization business was so prosperous that banks were founded on the
principle. Meanwhile, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank
headed a worldwide privatization crusade, while the Chicago School provided a
monetarist intellectuals caffolding. A further academic trend, termed “public
choice,” added to the individualistic current reinforcing the ideological
framework of privatization (Dunleavy, 1986: 13–34). In sum, privatization was
not only topical, but fashionable.

The hurricane of privatization had its origin in Great Britain. Great Britain
had led the world in nationalized companies, and now this national sector
formed by Labour governments over almost 50 years was dismantled and 600
thousand workers were transferred to the private sector. So successful was the
policy that even the workers apparently benefited from a generous “people's
capitalism” which included not only the acquisition of entire companies (notably
the National Freight Corporation (a transportation company for which each
worker contributed 500 dollars), but also shares in other companies and the
acquisition of rented dwellings. The sale of British Telecom (BT) enabled 96%
of its employees to acquire shares, but these were probably much less than
those bought by big capitalists, of which there were, however, few, for the
involvement of Japanese capital was required. “Popular capitalism” was one of
the most publicized mottoes in support of privatization and it was not unusual to
see it proclaimed in large headlines that the British government was no longer
the largest landlord in the country, for it had previously owned one out of every
three homes.

The privatization business was so large that the sale of British Telecom
was the largest transaction in history, even though it was at the time only the
sixth largest in the world and no more than a little over half its shares were sold.
But this record did not last; in 1986 British Gas (BG) sold for even more, being
offered at 8 billion dollars. With privatizations like these, the market for the sale

84
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

of public companies was rapidly becoming saturated. The stock market of Great
Britain, the leader in the process, was the world’s third largest. However, doubts
arose that the BT purchase could be completed. Other markets were resorted
to, among them Japan, whose investors bought most of the shares and became
the majority owners (Quek Peck Lim, 1986: 24–27). The sale of BT was the
largest of its day, as mentioned above, but still smaller than Nippon Telegraph
and Telephone(NTT). Its sale was forced by a de-merger and its market
capitalization value was ranked as equivalent to that of General Motors; 21
billion dollars. In 1986 the sale of 10% of the company would produce 2.1
million dollars, about half that of BT when its shares were floated on the global
market two years earlier.
As a practical party platform, privatization was developed primarily as a
set of techniques for disposing of British government assets. The doctrine was
developed after the fact, but neoliberalism, the Conservative Party ideology,
served as the initial momentum through themantra of “public choice” (Pirie,
1988: 58–60, 65, 331). However, the act of privatization itself led to a scaling up
of doctrine to reach beyond that school of thought –concentrated on explaining
why groups act as they do and what effect it has on public programs and
policy– to develop the concept of “micropolitics” to mean the use of policy to
overcome the objections of groups whose interests are threatened. That is, this
strategy improves on the public option which can be summed up as identifying
groups benefiting from government social programs. Micropolitics, in turn, is
involved in the circumstances under which individuals may be motivated to
choose and embrace the alternative of private provision of public goods, in
which people can decide individually and voluntarily about the cumulative
effects of the state of affairs they desire (Pirie, 1985:28–29). Finally, advancing
the idea of the new public management, Pirie notes that privatization provides a
process by which entrepreneurial talent can work in the political system,
providing it with creative input to deal with public problems.

The above description summarizes the first step of a two-step process of


privatization of public concerns. This step entails the exoprivatization of the
state, consisting of the procedure by which public administration transfers the
production of goods and services to private administration, moving the state out
of the market. The second stage, which we will shortly examine, is the
endoprivatization of the state; that is, the substitution of public administration of
national affairs by the ideas, methodology and techniques of private
management, moving the market into the state. In exoprivatization, public
management functions as the subject of the transaction of things onto the
market; in endoprivatizaction, the management itself becomes the object of the
commercial transaction. In the first stage, public management is the merchant,
in the second phase it is the merchandise. While exoprivatization acts on the
“what” of public administration, endoprivatization affects the “how.”

85
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

The Neomanagerial Reform


When Margaret Thatcher came to power in 1979, she established the
Efficiency Unit in order to lay out the terms of the Conservative government’s
managerial reform (Dunleavy and Hood, 1995: 112). The core of the reformist
ideology was made up of methods, concepts, models and values imported from
the experience of private business. Without giving thought to the idea that any
changes made as part of the “managerial revolution” could be reversible, it was
proclaimed that the administrative reform would be successful in and of itself
and have a lasting influence on the United Kingdom (Metcalfe, 1993: 351–352).

The reform began following the emergence of three factors that


determined the course of events: the first was the financial failure of the public
treasury, as the government’s financial yields showed declining figures.
Second, public spending was floundering in a sea of extraordinarily specific
formal stipulations (Metcalfe, 1993: 353). Third, the civil service was perceived
as unable to provide services efficiently and effectively in terms of public
spending. In summary, public administration showed large deficiencies in its
ability to manage funds, and a new public management was seen as the right
formula to put the national administration in order, control public spending, and
reduce the civil service, due to the scarcity of funds. In fact, the formula was
simple: better government means business management.

This idea translated into a plan that proclaimed the arrival of a


government that would do less of what it had been doing, and do it better and
more economically, using the managerial methodology of private business. As
mentioned above, the public choice competition was invoked in support of the
reform to put an intellectual face on the concept of reducing the purview of the
state and orienting it toward market formulas. These measures were based on
the thesis that public problems could be solved with private instruments. The
reform, despite its purely technical prospectus, was carried out in an
environment of hostility mainly from the civil service, which ultimately
determined its course and outcome. An equally important factor that must be
considered was the market orientation philosophy, which led to a cumulative
shift toward micro-managed reform, rather than a large-scale change based on
an overall design.

The managerial reform went through four relatively different but distinctly
overlapping stages; scrutiny, “final reforms,” “next steps” and structural
reorganization. The first phase consisted of many small scrutiny projects carried
out by civil servants under the Efficiency Unit, which involved examining the
work process in particular areas of government departments, locating
deficiencies in managerial performance and recommending improvements, and
obtaining positive results in terms of cost and human effort. The “final reforms”
were objectives for management to fulfill; that is, the institutionalization of
performance values in terms of time and cost. They were aimed at establishing
a basis for British public management into the future, by means of the Financial
Management Initiative launched in May 1982, which consisted of a
comprehensive financial reform program designed to improve control of public
spending (Metcalfe, 1993: 356–360). The third phase of the managerial reforms

86
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

began with the 1988 publication of the Efficiency Unit report entitled Improving
Management in Government: The Next Steps, which evaluated the state of
reform from 1979 up to publication of the report. The fourth stage of the reform
represented a qualitative change from the previous changes, for it called for
large-scale transformations in the main public services delivered at the local
level, as well as in the National Health Service and the education system. The
changes were to be implemented in a scheme of organizational networks rather
than a comprehensive administrative unit.

In fact the reform, particularly the public choice as an ideological network


of neomanagerial reform, attacked the limits of government and proposed
reducing what government did to the least possible. Among its programs, the
privatization of public services was particularly notable, encouraging
government operations to be delivered through market mechanisms in order to
become more competitive and efficient. To put it simply, it was a question of
establishing what Peter Self defined as “government by the market” (Self, 1993:
IX, 167, 176), whose premise consists of a regime considered inherently
superior for meeting human needs and aspirations, since it judges that the
political process inherently contains numerous distortions and imperfections.
The public choice served as a model of neomanagerial reform, being based on
competition, contracts, performance incentives and decentralized management.

There is no doubt that the public choice was one of the most powerful
forces within neomanagerial trends directed towards the achievement of two
objectives: the first is the decreased range of the state’s activity through
privatization, deregulation and liberalization. The second objective was to instill
market concepts in the government (Self, 1993: 59, 61–62). At the same time,
these forces developed a set of essential elements of this superior virtual
government that emulated the marketplace. Firstly, it comprises a transparent
system of accounting and accountability. Secondly, an important feature is the
introduction of competition, where customer opinion is central to the provision of
goods and services. Third, it establishes a system of performance incentives for
civil servants based on standards for evaluating their performance. Lastly, it
proposes to fully introduce market mechanisms to government operations,
based on the cost and benefit criteria.

Finally, the British neomanagerial reform meant a conceptual translation


of “effectiveness” to “efficiency:” that is, a shift from seeking positive effects
toward an accent on costs, as was clear in the ideology of the Conservative
Party whose platform was based on the reduction of public spending and the
role of government, and on reducing the waste caused by “bureaucracy.” The
reform is also notable for its commitment to introducing managerial skills
imported from the private sector into the civil service and to reduce the number
of civil servants. The 732,000 civil servants in 1979 would be cut to 590,000 by
1988 (Drewry and Butcher, 1988: 198–199). By 1986, the number of civil
servants had been reduced to 594, fewer than the number during World War II.

Inasmuch as the goal of efficiency was not achieved either, especially


because it was more a “revolution” process, the new managerial reform was
only one more step of the of British public administration “evolution.” It was,
rather, part of a long-standing, ongoing movement, and its changes were no

87
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

more than successive episodes of the steps that preceded the changes of the
reform by at least twenty years (Drewry and Butcher, 1988: 211–212). The
result was simply that a world in which officials were called managers “in
charge” and the public was called “clients” returned to how it had been before.
Some countries shared elements of the British reform package, but others did
not, and followed their own path. There were even reform programs that had
profoundly different characteristics from the British model. There are evident
differences in the pace of reform between the “delirium” of the British program
and the punctuated or cautious movement in the majority of European
countries. The Italians made an apprehensive and uncertain approach to
reform, opting to pursue a strategy capable of navigating their huge,
labyrinthine, chaotic government (Wright, 1997: 35–36). Many of the pressures
for reform were common to numerous countries, but others were of different
intensity and in different phases. Great Britain in particular was under budget
pressure earlier than most of its European neighbors, while the administrative
adjustment in the European Union in the 1980s fell much harder on the new
member countries, such as Spain, Portugal and Greece, than on the founding
nations.

Once the neoliberal wave had washed over Great Britain and receded,
affairs returned to normal, and once again the British demonstrated their ability
to return to the onward path after a detour. In fact, not only did it abandon the
new managerial paths that privatized its public administration from the inside,
but public services and corporations were renationalized. Let us take a look,
starting with the railway infrastructure, formerly privatized into one hundred
independent companies, which collapsed in 2005. It was then rescued by the
government and restructured as a private nonprofit organization, and its debts
were underwritten by the British government. The privatized energy service,
too, collapsed in 2002 and was rescued by the government, which then sold its
shares to the private sector. A similar case is the National Air Traffic Services, a
public–private partnership, rescued by the government, which also sold its
shares. Lastly, the London Underground, another public–private partnership,
collapsed and was returned to the city government.

88
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

Part Two
ADMINISTRATIVE THOUGHT IN GREAT BRITAIN

89
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

Chapter 7

THE ORIGIN OF BRITISH ADMINISTRATIVE THOUGHT


Due to both its geographic island condition and its inhabitants’ sense of
independence and uniqueness, Great Britain was the birthplace of a unique
strain of administrative thought consistent with its national culture. British
administrative institutions are famous for their self-government, corresponding
to the intense sense of citizen political participation of the English, Scottish and
Welsh. The fact that Britain contains England, Scotland and Wales, united and
independent at the same time, speaks of the British spirit of self-governing.

Kaspar Bluntschli noted many years ago the enormous contrast between
centralized France and decentralized Great Britain (Bluntschli, 1876: II, 253–
254). However, it does not follow from this that the omnipresence of the
administration in the former is in contrast to its virtual “absence” in the latter. A
first impression would wrongly suggest that there are great theorists of
administration in France, such as Charles-Jean Bonnin, Louis Marie de
Cormenin, Alexandre Vivien and Alexis de Tocqueville, while Britain has not
produced scholars of such stature because the British administration was not
very important. But what occurred, rather, was that the island did not require a
public administration until the mid-twentieth century: until then, it had not faced
the problem of administration. That is, historical conditions will produce the
necessary human minds and talents to study and solve the major problems of
public administration in a country endowed with an administrative organization
that is strategic and decisive for the nation’s development. Marx’s saying that a
problem does not exist until there are means to solve it should not be forgotten.
In France it was in the nineteenth century that the great minds mentioned above
emerged. Their ideas offered solutions to the problems of their time; neither
earlier nor later.
In Great Britain the situation was different: since public administration
served only the needs dictated by historical conditions; that is, it achieved what
could not be done privately, its role was subsidiary. Therefore, in the absence of
major administrative problems, minds that could solve them were also absent.
As The country’s public administration was simple, its administrative thought
was likewise elementary. But it must not be thought that for this reason it was
not important. Tocqueville, in his De la démocratie en Amérique, sufficiently
stressed the virtues inherent in the simple Anglo-American public administration
of his times, contrasting it with the vices of the complex French administration of
the era.

The Briton, a Practical Man

The British people flatter themselves that they are a nation of practical
men, and that this is the reason for their success as a community. This still
holds, it is true, but the practice of administration been undergoing
systematization through general principles for a considerable time. The

90
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

historical reluctance to adopt a method constitutes “their” method of “I’ll muddle


through.” This means that confronted with a given problem, they will pull
through somehow (Siegfried, 1950: 91). Hence, over time, their continued
success made them believe that triumphed not only because of their qualities,
but also because of their flaws, which is why they took pride in not their
changing for a long time. But while this system worked, and tolerated many
faults and aberrations as long the country was prosperous, it was a different
story when its fortunes changed.
It is true that practice tends to lead the way over roads where science
later follows; this explains how the British acquired a wealth of experience in
administrative practice primarily in their colonial domains, rather than on the
home island. Their colonial experience served to develop administrative talent
in a variety of nations and different conditions. To this was added the effects of
the industrial revolution with the growth of cities and increased population
mobility, which gave rise to previously unknown administrative problems and
prompted the development of administrative institutions that generated new
relationships between the government and the governed (Merson, 1923: 220–
227). All this meant that Great Britain would have to deal not only with
unprecedented problems but to do so on an unprecedented scale. In the 1920s,
however, problems were still tackled empirically. There had not been sufficient
thought about the need to create a reliable guide for the public administrator,
like that of architect or the physicist, who have available a scientifically
systematized body of facts and principles that govern their actions. The same is
true of lawyers and other professionals whose activities if formerly less
scientific, later were rigorously guided by systematized knowledge. Public
administration continued to be anchored in the method of trial and error,
because administrative problems still did not demand momentous solutions:
while the administration was not as efficient as a rational model would require, it
continued to function for British society. But with the years, these types of
problems would soon mount up.

Practice is an element of all public administrations; thus the distinctive


feature must be sought not in the fact itself, but in the way that its inherent
knowledge is transmitted. If it occurs vis a vis during the commission of normal
affairs, the process will be extremely successful for its educational nature, but
socially restricted and limited in time. But when practical knowledge is
systematized for transmission, then the range of learning is considerably
broadened, and can be organized into principles not only of actions, but of
knowledge.

Towards the end of the 1950s, when the future of the public
administration was addressed, everything seemed to indicate that it was the
end of the practical British man in the sense of the person who can do anything
and everything. This was due to his rarity, socially speaking, because he was
increasingly difficult to find. Also, the advance of science and technology, along
with the progress of administrative knowledge, demands not only the skill of this
type of person, but of all people who tackle administrative tasks (Gladden,
1952: 158–159). Nor were practitioners able to develop new methods and
procedures to deal with the emerging situations of the times that had begun to
demand people trained expressly for administration. To the extent that

91
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

administrative skills and knowledge were distributed among different groups of


people, a “universal school of administrative studies” was required that would
offer educational programs where young people who were candidates for the
public service could acquire the appropriate education.

However, despite the clarity with which the new era showed a need for
the scientific development of public administration, there was not enough
awareness to give unqualified support to the ongoing efforts, such as the
Institute of Public Administration in 1921, which two decades later was already
being subsidized by the Treasury. Nor was the journal Public Administration,
one of the oldest in the world, the appropriate forum for the discussion of
administrative problems. What is more, there was no lack of practitioners who
tended to favor the idea of public administration as an art rather than a science
(Gladden, 1952: 159–161). In fact, one author points out that paradoxically the
private sector was making faster progress in scientific management principles
through the Institute of Industrial Administration and the British Institute of
Management; while the government was still not able to materialize its plan of
creating an Administrative Staff College.

Government officials working in public administration perform a set of


tasks which include reading and writing correspondence, minutes and
memoranda; making telephone calls; attending meetings and interviews; and
holding informal discussions with colleagues. They look for information they
need, calculate, and draw up tables. This is their daily work. If we described the
work of the politician in the same way, surely he himself would seek to provide
a written interpretation of his tasks; that is, of his practice. This is precisely what
Machiavelli did (Dunsire, 1973: 76). Obviously there are practitioners of public
administration who have transmitted their experiences, although this is not
usual or common. The first textbook on public administration in Britain was in
the form of a discourse: the dialogue of the Exchequer, dated 1179, which is a
manual of court proceedings of that body. The work consists of a dialogue
between the author, Richard Fitz Neal, Archbishop of London, and one of the
barons of the Exchequer (Richard Fitz Neal, 1950). Since then, Great Britain
has clearly been the leader in Western Europe on the many topics arising from
administrative processes. These types of texts, and many more that have
followed them, show the great value of the books written about the practice of
public administration, although few civil servants have produced them, most
notably C.H. Sisson and Max Nicholson, but above all we must mention W.H.
Moreland and E.N. Gladden. The very fact that there have been many books
written by retired public servants, some who became academics, has shone a
light on the important fact of the innovation of British administrative culture
within outlines similar to those of the continental countries.
It is clear that administrative culture separates and distinguishes different
peoples; but it is also clear that there is a more general framework of
administrative culture that identifies the similarities between administrations of
different countries, a similarity primarily lying in the aspects common to the mind
of the public administrator regardless of his country. In principle, the mentality of
the administrator is different everywhere, for example, than that of the artist,
because the administrator is a person whose reasoning is diametrically different
from that of other professions. It is important to note that while artists arbitrarily

92
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

shape “their” world; that is, modeling and inventing it, administrators are subject
to a real world that conditions and determines their behavior. In fact, while the
artist is endowed with a singular mind, the administrator’s mindset is universal.
The public administrator may discard some elements of his world, but not many
of them and not those that affect his work, because his existential world is
determined by the principle of effectiveness of his activities. His work operates
in a universe that must be observed comprehensively, taking into account that
ignoring key elements would detract from the quality of his work. This is
because the mind of the official is always searching for what is important and
relevant, for it is the criterion of relevance that primarily defines the nature of his
work (Sisson, 1965: 121–122). For example, the French public administrator
must simultaneously manage his relationship with the minister and the Council
of State, because an essential determinant of his work consists in calculating
the potential effects of his labors; that is, to ensure the smooth operation of the
policy he advocates and the changes in government that might be announced.
The work of the British official, in contrast, is based on the criterion of relevance,
clearly and strongly committed to determining what is necessary and timely to
help the minister navigate the changeable waters of the parliamentary process
and administrative environment.

Great Britain celebrated practice when reality demanded a scientific


treatment of the public administration; that is not only describing it, but
understanding it. As explained by one scholar, who was a public servant before
he was a scientist, it is necessary that practical men be the authors of manuals
and guides as well as books on the fundamental issues that turn their
experiences into theoretical principles. His experience was played out on soil
well known to the British; namely India, where he recommended that public
administration be open to knowledge and progress in the subject from around
the world, since its progress and the state of the art had been shaped there. But
most important was Paul Appleby's insistence on the need to comprehend the
administrative situation of the country, not only by describing it, but by
understanding it. For this, it is necessary to generate theory because the object
of public administration in a democratic environment is the welfare of the
people. Theory is not only the vehicle of this method of understanding, but of its
construction (Appleby, 1953: 65–69). His Report on India faithfully reflects the
falseness of the dichotomy between practice and theory, because the former
can only be socialized systematically when it is transmitted, that is, when it can
be taught. To this end, it is necessary to convert personal (and social)
experience into communicable principles to serve as a guide to other
practitioners, as many active and retired British civil servants did in works of
theoretical influence.

There is a sterile approach in which practice and theory are viewed as


antagonistic, which has been the cause of much of the scientific barrenness of
public administration. This contradiction has led to a division of labor between
practical and theoretical, sending them on two separated, parallel paths; each
to their own values, isolated from the other. Harold Laski, a man of abstract
thought and a theorist of public administration and political science, was so
concerned with “practical” problems that he did not mind coming down from his
pedestal when he wrote the foreword to a small handbook on civil service,
whose members said they had little incentive and few stimuli, and whose task

93
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

was often monotonous and difficult (Laski, 1945: 3–4). Moreover, democracy
does not necessarily mean that the civil service is open to superior talent nor
that “senior” civil servants are “top” public officials. Permanent secretaries take
very little care to equip the work of the minister, the head of his department,
with energy and imagination.

Thus the axial epistemological problem in public administration is its


“self-consciousness;” that is, knowing itself to be an independent entity, a
discipline defined as an area of knowledge with principles of its own (Waldo,
1948: 26–27). If we believe that a science consists of the production of
systematic explanations based on empirical data logically linked in regular
patterns (Nagel, 1961: 5), then public administration has a scientific aspect.

94
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

The Founders of British Administrative Thought

Self-consciousness tends to surface in accounts aimed at solving


specific, immediate, imperative problems, usually taking a preceptist form or
simply appearing as an advisory bulletin or an operating manual for officials.
Most of the volume of administrative literature that poured out between the
eighth and seventeenth centuries was dominated by pieces of this type.
Although they were rare, some other more abstract examples did appear, such
as the treatise on the Exchequer by Richard Fitz Neal.

On this point, Great Britain followed this tradition by taking the path of
administrative teaching. Thus the history of British administrative thinking
begins with Henry Taylor’s famous book on the statesman (Taylor, 1927). In its
pages, knowledge about British public administration is systematized for what is
apparently the first time. With the passage of time, the idea of the simplicity of
the British civil service began to change; the usual focus on complexity by the
degree of organization; that is, differentiation and specialization, gave way to
new perspectives. That is, the emphasis on “impersonal” assessments of the
organization, was not the only one, as the “personal” approach shown by the
civil service was also considered. This perspective, typical of Great Britain, is
due to the elevation of professional public servants and the emblematic book on
the topic, The Statesman, by Taylor.

Henry Taylor (1800–1886) was a well-educated man, including self


taught languages such as Greek and Latin, which reinforced his literary skills
and his relationship with those who fostered them, such as his friend Alfred
Tennyson. But no less important was his administrative career, as shown by his
long career in the Colonial Office, where he served until 1872. This unique book
sets Taylor apart: while the genre was not unknown in Great Britain, it was more
typical of the Latin nations of the continent. However, by this very fact, his work
was regarded as a defense of Machiavelli, the most important exponent of the
genre of guides on the art of government. These books were part of the body of
works of political education typified by Baltasar de Castiglione's The Book of the
Courtier, referring to high officials, that is, “statists” in Taylor’s terminology
(Laski, 1927: XXI–XXV). However, the abundant texts published in the
eighteenth century slowed down after the French Revolution, while in Germany
the cameralist studies were in the majority. Great Britain was not immune to the
influence of this genre, as can be observed in James I’s Basilikon (1599) and a
work by Francis Bacon titled De Augmentis to which Taylor pays tribute to the
beginning of his book. The fact that Italian thinkers such as Machiavelli and
Guicciardini were translated into English shows that British people were
interested in the subject. A Spanish text of the same era was also published in
France, Italy and Germany, but its English version is notable for its long title; A
very briefe and profitable Treatise declaring howe many counsells, and what
manner of Counselers a Prince that will governe well ought to have (W. Seres,
London 1570). The book was by Fadrique Furió Ceriol (1549), El Concejo y
Consejeros del Príncipe (Furió Ceriol, 1952).

Thomas Elyot merits special mention as the author of Boke of the


Governour written in 1531, which is the most representative of this genre of

95
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

political literature (Elyot, 1880). We must add his The Doctrinal of Princes
published in 1533, which contained translations of two speeches by Isocrates
from the fourth century BCE. The two works are titled To Nicocles (Ad
Nicoclem) and Nicocles or the Cyprians (Nicocles vel Cyprius) and were
addressed to the king of Cyprus. The reputation of both speeches has grown,
mainly because they are considered as the original examples of the current of
thought known as the mirror of princes. Also notable is his short treatise The
Image of Governance based on Reloj de Principes by Antonio de Guevara,
which was written by Elyot in 1541 (Elyot, 1967a, 1967b).

Taylor wrote a treatise on the teaching of administration, taking


inspiration from the thought of Francis Bacon, who proposed that the education
of statesmen be based on a study of history, policy speeches and languages.
Taylor dwells on the theme of history, for in it he observes the unique character
of each epoch, the condition of society and the causes of revolutions (Taylor,
1927, 3–5, 11, 47). His statement that the essence of statesmanship lies in the
implementation of policy measures is famous. The ability to carry this out comes
from a study of history, but also from a review of administrative records and
mastery of the art of debate. He is characterized by his mental discipline, and
his ability to solve problems and appraise the qualities of others. This is
summarized in the concept of “conscientiousness;” that is, the ability to adjust
one’s degree of responsibility in public affairs. In other words, to avoid
neglecting major duties to attend to the minutiae, and to prevent the loss of a
vital sense of responsibility towards action, not inaction. Conscientiousness is
thus the ability to anticipate the views of others. Finally, the character of the
statesman lies in the most important of his qualities; namely, that in the service
of the state he acts through others.

We can not forget a nineteenth-century text, very representative of Great


Britain, anchored in the ancient dogmas of decentralization. At the beginning of
the second half of the nineteenth century, Joshua Toulmin Smith condemned
centralization and lauded British self-government. Most notable is his radical
effort to distinguish between the systems, leaving no doubt as to their deep
differences. Centralization evokes the idea of measures taken from a
metropolitan center, while local self-government refers to the management of
the affairs of some or a few, that is, the local district. Local self-government is
the regime under which many minds learned most of the affairs they tended,
and had the opportunity to learn even more; managing or supervising these
matters, they had a great interest in doing so properly (Smith, 2005: 17). In
contrast, centralization is the vast system of government under which a small
number of minds know little about the affairs they tend, and have little
opportunity to learn more; managing or supervising these manners, they have
only limited interest in doing so properly.

Both positions, one that strives to do credit an ancestral government, the


other envisioning a new era in which public administration plays a major role,
are the precursors of the administrative thought that modestly but decidedly put
Great Britain on the administrative world map.

96
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

Chapter 8

THE SCIENCE OF THE BRITISH PUBLIC


ADMINISTRATION IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY

Self-consciousness came late to public administration in Great Britain, for


up to half a century ago, the industrial revolution, government modernization,
expansion of social programs and government intervention in the economy had
provided sufficient material for potential scholars. The science of the British
public administration was born at the start of the twentieth century. A core of its
representatives forged what, with British peculiarity, Rosamund Thomas called
“the British philosophy of administration.” However, this group, whose members
were active mainly between 1900 and 1939, did not include the most important
British administrative thinker of the time, W.H. Moreland, after whom the other
most prominent authors in the first half of the twentieth and the present century
were F. Merson, Richard Warner, E.N. Gladden, S.N. Finer, R.J.S. Baker, A.
Dunsire, Peter Self and F.F. Ridley, as well as Harold Laski, Herman Finer and
William Robson.

It should be noted that Great Britain has similar and equivalent


administrative institutions to those on the European continent, and that many of
them even have a common origin. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate the
uniqueness of the development of the ideas corresponding those institutions,
which contrasts with how they arose on the continent. Questions such as these
led F.F. Ridley to say that Great Britain was academically underdeveloped with
respect to the theory of public administration. This, then, explains the paradox
of British administrative thought between its correspondence with reality and its
unexplored relationship with advances in the science of European
administration.

These considerations contribute towards an understanding of the unique


features of British administrative thinking. Perhaps most striking is that having
developed within the continental tradition of administrative science, it could
perhaps be considered marginal in its evolution. The seeds of administrative
ideas initially planted in Great Britain yielded very different fruits than their
intellectual products in continental countries, where specific national
characteristics were tempered by geographical contact, while across the
Channel, isolation led to a wealth of ideas nuanced by adaptation of concepts
from abroad. At the same time, this singularity was reinforced by the insularity
of British administrative thought, which mixed science and ethics to give rise to
a set of ideas that was called “philosophy of administration.”

The London Circle

This concept is not a school of thought, but a set of administrative ideas


with deliberately constructed affinities. The circle was a group of diverse
academics; Richard Haldane, Graham Wallas, William Henry Beveridge, Oliver

97
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

Sheldon, Lyndall Urwick and Charles Stamp. It did not include Harold Laski or
Sidney and Beatrice Webb, whose contributions similar to those of the
members could have enriched the group. In itself, this combination of persons
inherently implies the impossibility of forming a school and an esprit de corps,
inevitably resulting in a fragmented assortment of administrative ideas not
collected into one discipline, but in a variety of fields of knowledge such as
economics, history, engineering, sociology and philosophy. They were a set of
prominent public administration activists whose concepts, besides coming out
of strong academic backgrounds, stemmed from practical exercise. There is,
perhaps, in most of their writing a reluctance to use any theoretical formulation,
but rather an evident practical bent. This lends a certain simplicity to their
writings, which include more description and subjective attitudes than would a
rigorous systematic analysis (Thomas, 1970: 22–23, 27–28). In them, their
activism was expressed in a variety of institutions such as the Civil Servants
Society, British Association for the Advancement of Science and the Institute of
Public Administration; and in the fruitful activism that they carried out in
industrial companies and the Institute of Industrial Administration where the
work of Urwick and Sheldon was particularly notable. In our opinion, it is, rather,
all of them who made up the London Circle.

For all these reasons it is necessary to know something of their


administrative biographies. Haldane was an outstanding public servant whose
most notable position was Secretary of State for War. He presided over the
administrative reform commission that bears his name (1918). Wallas was a
professor of political science and in 1923 acquired the distinction of Professor
Emeritus. He was part of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service. Beveridge,
a former civil servant, also excelled in academic posts; he served the director of
the London School of Economics and taught at Oxford, and designed the British
welfare state. Stamp’s activities were mainly academic; he was president of the
London campus of the school, and like Haldane, he also headed the Institute of
Public Administration. Lyndall Urwick was a student of private management, as
well as Director of the International Management Institute and vice president of
the British Institute of Management. Sheldon also studied private management,
about which he wrote his most famous work, The Philosophy of Management,
published in 1930.
His activism launched such major institutions as the London School of
Economics, where Wallas, Haldane and Beveridge participated in the Fabian
Society, in which Sidney and Beatrice Webb were active. Wallas was a
professor there and Stamp a student while Beveridge served as its director
(Thomas, 1970: 29–30). Urwick, too, began an extramural doctorate there,
which he had to interrupt in 1914 because he had enlisted in the army. These
thinkers followed a different course than their American counterparts, such as
W.F. Willoughby, Herbert Simon and Dwight Waldo, who were full time
professors.

However, their meeting point was the University of London, where many
of them had professorships. It was from this school that the first texts treating
public administration with the principles of a new discipline were published.
Particularly notable was the work of George Thomas Reid, a graduate of the
University (1906–1908), whose 1916 book on the history of the English public

98
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

administration was perhaps the first in the twentieth century (Reid, 1913). A
degree thesis on public administration in ancient India also stands out among
the new work on public administration; its excellent quality resulted in its
publication in 1916. Its author, Pramathanath Banerjea, was a professor in India
and a member of the Royal Economic Society of Great Britain (Banerjea, 1916).

Among the members of the London Circle, Oliver Sheldon and Lyndal
Urwick are notable for having produced a more extensive and complete body of
work on administration. Although it did not specifically address public
administration, but business management, is nevertheless important, since it
provided significant input to others.
It was Sheldon who systematized the use of the word “management” in
Great Britain and, as mentioned above, wrote the first book on the subject, The
Philosophy of Management, published in 1923 (Sheldon, 1965). Inspired by this
work, from which he took an apt phrase referring to the recent development of
management as a profession, the American administrative thinker Leonard
White coined his famous definition of public administration as “the management
of men and materials in the accomplishment of the purposes of the state”
(White, 1926: 2). White, who in doing so set the path that would be followed by
the American public administration for four decades, said he had deliberately
minimized the legal aspects of public administration, emphasizing the
managerial aspect. Sheldon was a pioneer in understanding a phenomenon
inherent to the industrial revolution, along with Henri Fayol and Frederick
Taylor, and deserves to be recognized alongside them as one of the founders
of the managerial disciplines. His uniqueness and his important contribution
was his observation that industry is not restricted to its mechanical aspect; that
is, that it is not merely a machine, but a complex association of human life. It is
thus accurately represented by the thought, objectives and ideals of the human
being, not by machinery (Sheldon, 1965:28–29).

Industry was created to meet the needs of human life in its physical,
mental and moral aspects, so the purpose of management is in effect to make
the industry human and to personify a type of joint effort among men towards a
common goal, since they are driven by a common impulse. To achieve this
goal, a motive and an ideal are necessary, as well as direction and
coordination, and human effort and cooperation. Management is therefore not
an end or motive in itself; if the motive of industry is primarily profit as a service
to society, management is enshrined and legitimized by this, and the future of
industry rests in its hands. Management, conceived as a social fact with an
economic nature because it operates in and from industrial processes,
influences human life from its locus.

Lyndall Urwick is notable as a prominent follower of Fayol, who was the


main inspiration for his most famous book, Elements of Administration,
published in 1942 (Urwick, 1942: 16). In this work, his most important
contribution lies in its successful effort to scale Fayol’s ideas. Based on the
distinction between the two different activities encompassed by Fayol’s term
prévoyance, Urwick finds a difference between forecasting and planning. On
the basis of this distinction, he notes that forecasting leads to planning;
moreover that the organization has control as its object, and management leads

99
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

to control. Employing these ideas, Urwick went beyond Fayol’s cyclical concept
of the administrative process to develop a relational movement of logically
linked paired concepts in which the first element is the cause, and the second
element is the consequence. Forecasting is done in order to plan, organizing to
coordinate, and command to control; in which the plan assumes forecasting,
coordinating assumes organization control assumes command.
No less celebrated was an earlier article based on a talk given in 1933,
which is one of the cornerstones of a 1930 biblical text that carried Urwick’s
influence three decades further. His essay “Organization as a Technical
Problem” is one of the most significant works on organizations from the era
when this field was in its infancy (Urwick, 1937: 75, 83–84). In it, the formulation
of conceptual pairs is formulated in a preliminary, but clear way. Its pages hold
some astute comments on the British public administration, the first dealing with
the posts of private secretary and executive assistant as staff positions. The
essay then goes on to address coordination problems arising from the
proliferation of committees.
As we will soon see, between 1900 and 1939, there was indeed a British
theory of public administration, just as there is one today and will be tomorrow.
We should note that British scientific advances went beyond their own country,
influencing administrative studies in the United States. In the 1930s what was
happening there was followed with interest, which led to an article by Harvey
Walker comparing the study of the discipline between his country and the
United States (Walker, 1933).

We should note that Harold Laski, together with the Webbs, were not
part of the “British administrative philosophy” but diametrically contrasted to it,
due to their “radical” vision as Rosemund Thomas understood it. They were,
however, a prominent part of the London Circle. Nor did Thomas agree with
another notable thinker, Herman Finer, who had an enormous influence on the
study of public administration in both Great Britain and the United States.

Harold Laski was one of the most respected political philosophers of his
time, and remains so even today, many years after his death. One of his major
works examines the state from its most diverse political aspects, without
neglecting a treatment of the economy (Laski, 1929: 368). But it is mainly
notable for its comprehensive, reasoned review of British public administration.
Laski devoted many pages to a treatment of public administration as one of the
problems of the state. On the basis of the fact that Great Britain has a
parliamentary system, he explains that when the cabinet formulates a policy
accepted by Parliament, it must then be immediately implemented. This is the
origin of an executive function; namely to coordinate and inspect the
administration of the state.
On this basis, questions are asked about the same problem that is raised
by every practitioner of public administration of his time; namely, how to
distribute all the issues and tasks among different ministries. Since there is no
rigid system of categories by which issues can be grouped, he proposes,
speaking broadly, to split based on one of two criteria: distribution of issues by
persons or by services. He discards the former, finding that by default, it aims to

100
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

provide every kind of person with a variety of services, which are specialized by
their nature, resulting in duplication of effort in each ministry. Laski painted an
example in which one ministry would handle matters relating to children,
another the unemployed, another one senior citizens, another veterans, and so
on, each ministry occupied with meeting the needs of one social category
(Laski, 1929: 369). He proposes, rather, the latter division, which implies
specialized ministries; that is, one for national defense, another for public
education and another for health, to name three examples. He concludes by
stating that the argument for organizing ministries based on services is evident.

Laski next poses the problem of well-defined orbits for ministries, which
inherently involves the problems of their organization and leadership. With
respect to organization, there are five principles that should be observed. The
first is that there must be a minister accountable to Parliament for the work done
by his department; the second, that should be proper financial controls in every
department (Laski, 1929: 369–370). The third principle requires that each
ministry contain a parliamentary committee by means of which it establishes
ordered, continuous relationships, while the fourth refers to the task of
structuring a well-defined organization of inter-ministerial cooperation to solve
problems they have in common such those shared by the Board of Trade and
the Ministry of Labour. Lastly, the fifth principle entails the need to structure a
research and study system.
It must be emphasized that the majority of treatises on public
administration give more importance to the “administration” aspect, leaving
“public” in second place. Laski does not do so, because he believes it is
important that there be a direct relationship between the public and the
executive power in its administrative performance (Laski, 1929: 375). Being a
far-reaching area that is very open to new experiences, governments have in
this respect been more conservative than in other branches of their activity. In
this area, their attitude envelopes a secret orbit, more typical of an empire than
a bureaucracy, that in a democratic state whose principles are simple, starting
with the suitability of consulting most of the interests affected by their action,
should not hold merely to rules, but interpret the words of those interests.

Herman Finer is the author of a famous phrase: government is politics


plus administration, which can be explained as follows: one of the prerogatives
of the government is to impose the will or desire of certain individuals or groups
on the behavior of the rest or on society as a whole. This desire or will may
emanate from one mind or arise spontaneously from many minds, or from a
minority. The purpose of government is to convert all these desires or wills to a
behavior that is authorized and directed to those who live within the scope of
what is called state. Accordingly, the government is strictly divided overall into
two parts, which, Finer says, are differentiable from each other, or even
completely separable: the political process and the administrative process. The
former comprises the origin, development and maturity of the social will to direct
the people’s loyalties or at least compliance to the establishment of a law or a
socially accepted convention. This involves simultaneously encouraging the
organization of society such that it is capable of making direct and indirect
sacrifices of time, money and expenditure, as establishing rewards and
personal limitations necessary to invoke the more general will. The result of the

101
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

process is the formation of a reservoir of social will and power (Finer, 1949: 7–
9). Meanwhile, administration is the use of that reservoir by a suitable public
service, as well as by mechanical means, physical space and methods, in order
to provide government services to those who are under the authority of the
state.

Because of the importance of politics and administration with respect to


civic well-being, the former is by far preferred, so that the administrative
machinery is subordinate to the political portion of the government. And rightly
so, because politocs determines the will and the function, which is more
important than the administrative apparatus. Finer points out emphatically that
the will is first, then the function, with administration following far behind. Having
thus defined and positioned the public administration, Finer understands the it
as the application of a limited discretion, this being understood as an activity
almost free in its character and volition. Thus public administration is a reflection
of the political rules; a vessel with a meager discretionary content dependent on
the accountability of the political masters. However, the politician should not
minimize the administration, because it is a mistake to think that administration
can not do benefit or harm like any act, omission or error of judgment on a
political decision (Finer, 1949: 7–9). This gives a sense of proportion to public
administration, from which Finer claims to have reached certain conclusions in
his studies of administration that do not lead him to either undervalue or
overvalue it in comparison to the government apparatus and process, a source
of other inaccuracies.

The administrative thinkers examined here made important contributions,


but none of them proposed to treat public administration as a science. Doing so
was W.H. Moreland’s great distinction.

102
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

W.H. Moreland: the Epistemological Construction of the British


Public Administration

It seems that until the publication of William Harrison Moreland’s article


“The Science of Public Administration,” Great Britain had not entered the study
of public administration as a scientific discipline. That is, before this work, no
British author had examined the epistemological construction of this field of
knowledge the way it had already been done in France, Germany, Spain and
the United States as well as Colombia and Mexico. The article, which was
published in the Quarterly Review in 1921, made it evident that Britain was one
of the last countries to develop the discipline, and that the effort to create an
academy to remedy the situation required rapid, determined action. As
mentioned earlier, Moreland (d. 1938) lived part of his productive life in India,
where he was a member of the civil service. In his books it was noted that
Moreland was an “Indian civil servant” and “late of the Indian civil service,” since
by 1920 he had retired from the civil service.

Moreland was not a “lone wolf” in the Great Britain of his time, when the
active London Circle was also producing administrative ideas such as the effect
of individual and institutional activism, but no scientific work. His writing, in spite
of the British organizational setting where it was conceived, seems like
something from outside the country when it comes to categories. In this sense,
it not only represented an advance over his native land, but over the entire
world, for many of his administrative ideas were developed before they
appeared in the United States or in France. Shortly after the publication of his
crowning article on the science of public administration, F. Merson would follow
his steps closely to raise it up as a field of scientific knowledge.

India was, in short, the original laboratory where Moreland, like many
other British civil servants, experienced and learned public administration, This
fact is significant because it was Moreland who initiated the scientific study of
public administration in Britain, having no background more vital and academic
than India, which was also his favorite subject to write about. As a member of
the civil service, he served as a director of taxes and property registration.
Hence many of his books relate to India, to which he devoted his book India at
the Death of Akbar, in which the second chapter is devoted to public
administration (Moreland, 1920). His reflections, of which a substantial part deal
with economy, especially finance, led him to explore the centralized imperial
administration of public taxes. But what is particularly notable is Chapter II,
which deals with the general administration of the country as well as with
security issues and trade. It is there that he defines administration as the
organization and methods by which a state strives to achieve its objectives.
Hence its nature, in any given era, is rooted in the objectives it proposes.

In the India of Akbar, the two primary objectives were war and domestic
security, stimulating the imperial administration to be configured on the basis of
obtaining revenue (Moreland, 1920: 31). Finance had long been his primary
interest, as can be observed in a work dedicated to the administration of
revenue in the India of his time. Its origins were the courses taught by Moreland
to new civil servants, because in his opinion, financial management is the

103
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

fundamental subject of their profession (Moreland, 1911). His knowledge of


public administration was vast, as noted in an article published in 1929, in which
explores Indian economic literature of antiquity and in which he said that the
famous book by Kautilya, Arthasastra, is a treatise on public administration that
sheds light on agricultural, commercial and industrial issues of the time –the
fourth century B.C.E. (Moreland, 1929).

Moreland notes that before beginning his book, he had found practical
studies of administration in his country, but none that treated theory. The
studies he referred to are:

Report of the Machinery of Government Committee. H.M. Stationery


Office, 1918. Cd.

Reports of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service. Stationery Office,


1911, etc.

Report of the Royal Commission on the Public Services in India. H.M.


Stationery Office, 1915.

Report of the Committee on the Scheme of Reamination for Class I of


the Civil Service. H.M. Stationery Office, 1917.

Reports of the Committee on the Organisation and Staffing of


Government Offices. Stationery Office, 1918, 1919.

Reports of the War Cabinet. H.M. Stationery Office, 1918, 1919.

Local and Central Government. By Percy Ashley. Murray, 1906.

Industry and Trade. By Alfred Marshall. Macmillan, 1919.

“And other works” (Moreland, 1921: 413).


It was then that he took up the historic task of writing the first theoretical
work on public administration in Great Britain and thus founding the science of
administration in his country. His task was possible because the times in which
he lived were changing, mainly due to advances in the society and the
economy, producing transformations that fostered the emergence of new duties
of the state under the impetus of demands for nationalization of the railways,
mines and other industries.

Moreland explains why the science of administration appeared late in


Great Britain; the reasons for the lack of systematic literature are evident: the
successes of British administrators took place in distant countries and passed
almost unnoticed in the West. The British had been familiar with the post office,
the tax collector and occasionally one or another inspector, but had very little
contact with the central government. However, what was most surprising was
that the educated men at its helm had not been tempted to reveal the principles
of their art. No less unusual was the fact that the field of the science of public
administration is clearly defined, especially when one takes as a reference the
relationship between policy and administration. Certainly, while policy

104
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

determines which objectives are to be achieved, it is administration that


implements the policy; that is, it does the things (Moreland, 1921: 413–414).
Political science is thus essentially the means by which policy is formulated,
while its relative, the science of public administration, begins where the former
ends. The distinction is conceptual, because administrators can give their
opinions on policy and statesmen can be engaged in administration, which
underlines the need for a clear recognition of the difference. In fact, statesmen
have a dual role as politicians and administrators, because a ministry is
essentially an administrative agency, while having an active role in the making
of policy.

Like Moreland, F. Merson also realized that awareness had been


growing for some time in the fields of public administration of the need to
establish principles that would guide the activities of public servants. In this
regard, the Institute of Public Administration had participated primarily in
studying the means of administrative action in the organization of society,
consistent with the complexity of the modern state (Merson, 1923: 220). This
was because the government could not continue under the domain of the spirit
of opportunism that had characterized Britain since the late nineteenth century.
The first task, then, was to define the scope of the new science of public
administration, and, having done so, to review the methods of scientific study
that would be applicable to the subject. Until this task had been done, Merson
believed that it could not be claimed that a science of public administration
existed.
If the government is studied scientifically, this will produce knowledge
derived from the situations and conditions of all states of the world, not just the
British Empire. But administrators and theoreticians will need to stop publishing
works with no relationship to a defined science of public administration,
because otherwise their contributions will lack any quality stemming from the
comparison and communication of knowledge. When the scope of the science
of public administration has been clearly defined, it will represent a decisive
step towards growth and a large advance in the systematic literature on the
theory of a of a needed subject (Merson, 1923: 225–226). J.S. Mill long ago
spoke of a class consisting of professional civil servants whose job is to help
each minister, based on their experience, in the business of his portfolio. But
the public service can not claim the dignity of a profession unless it practices a
kind of knowledge which is found only in the science of public administration.

Great Britain thus came to possess, although belatedly, a substantial


collection of administrative knowledge, for these two brief works discussed
above established the first principles of public administration in the country.

105
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

Chapter 9

INCORPORATION OF THE BRITISH PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION


INTO GLOBAL ACADEMIC CIRCLES

The prosperity, importance and external impact of a discipline originating


in a country often depends on its ability to overcome “parochialism” and its
capacity to adapt worldwide. The greatest limitation of German cameralism was
its applicability within the German environment; that is, it was cultured in the
German-speaking countries alone, with the exception of some translations into
French and Spanish, which failed to take root in foreign soil. It was not until the
early twentieth century that foreign authors began to study it, and it could be
inserted into its place in the global discipline.

Great Britain was able to develop a science of public administration


equal to that on both sides of the Atlantic through the adoption of foreign
developments in the field and itsown contributions to other countries. This
process accelerated in the immediate postwar period, when British academics
in the science of public administration expanded and increased their efforts.
The road followed was that inaugurated by Moreland, although without any
apparent intellectual contacts. In this academic effort a large group of
professors is notable, all of them outstanding; William Robson, Richard Warner,
E.N. Gladden, S.E. Finer, A. Dunsire, Peter Self, R.J.S. Baker, F.F. Ridley,
R.G.S. Brown and D.R. Steel.

Maturation of British Administrative Thought

Richard Warner

Great Britain was no longer a country where public administration was


extensively practiced as an art, or where such a thing was lauded and praised;
and while it is not true that this should necessarily be a source of pride, it has
never been a source of disgrace either. In the early 1920s, Moreland and
Merson demonstrated plainly that the British could and should do more than the
art of administration, raising it to a scientific construction, and that they should
be pleased to do so. Some years later, an unknown administrative thinker
endorsed this spirit and carried it further with his book, published in 1947, The
Principles of Public Administration. Like Moreland, the author, Richard Warner,
was not recognized among British experts in the field, let alone outside the
country. Yet the importance of this book can not be overstated. First, it
contributed to dispelling the existing silence about public administration as a
scientific discipline. Secondly, by formulating the principles of public
administration, it sets out to provide an epistemological conceptualization of the
field. We can not ignore the subtitle, in itself suggestive, which states that the
book is a study of the mechanics of social action. The author –of whom we can
find no further biographical information– had a deep knowledge of his historical
time as well as of its international administrative literature, for his bibliography
includes American authors, French thinkers and those of other nationalities.

106
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

All indications are that Warner's work did not go unnoticed at the time, as
demonstrated by the literature review published by Norman Wengert in 1947,
which, though short and concise, summarizes the contents of Warner’s book
and shows its importance. Wengert did not ignore the differences between the
American and British administrations, particularly by the scant treatment of
issues such as budget and organization, and the emphasis on civil service
traditions (Wengert, 1948: 998–999). However, Wenger could be criticized for
neglecting the essence of the book; its scientific spirit. Warner’s book also
caught the attention of William Robson, who described it, together with others
by British and American authors, in a brief review. Robson shows respect for
Warner’s work, mainly for its concept of “principle” as well as for its
classification, but he refutes its disaggregation –even with decimals– and the
disorder that results from mixing historical, factual, policy and analytical claims
with constitutional doctrines and legal maxims without distinguishing between
them. However, Robson did not care for the book at all, to the extent that he
claimed it would be dangerous to recommend it to students of politics or public
officials who want to know learn about their respective profession (Robson,
1949: 84–85). I find Robson’s position too extreme, for a reading of Warner’s
book shows it to be much more useful than dangerous. If there is any danger, it
lies rather in dogmatically discrediting books under inquisitorial viewpoints, such
as that as adopted by Robson.

The principles that infuse Warner’s book are political leadership; public
responsibility; social necessity; and the need for efficiency, organization, public
relations, evolution and progress, and research. Warner states that by the mid
twentieth century, after two centuries of debate about a political philosophy
created by the Greeks, it was unlikely that anyone should regard politics and
administration as something new. But, he adds, public administration in its
actual sense is new because it is a subject of study of our own time. By this he
means that the state of affairs relating to government activity has transformed to
an environment in which the British people have a great influence, but at the
same time their life and many of the things they do are determined by the
activities of public officials. This is called “social action,” which must be
distinguished from the limited activities of private individuals as it was practiced
in the nineteenth century (Warner, 1947: VII).

The focus of this transformation is the executive branch of government,


which has grown in importance and runs the public administration of the
country. Hence Warner's book has as its purpose an examination of what the
division of labor has achieved in complex modern societies, and the role of
government in this process. After the politicians have done their work, it is
administrators who have a more decisive effect on the happiness and well
being of individual citizens. By its meaning and influence, public administration
acts as a force in the sphere of the affairs of social reality, where political
disputes may be merely a succession of momentary disturbances, but not
public administration. That is, in contrast to politics, public administration is not,
nor can be, and probably never will be, stimulating (Warner, 1947: VII–VIII). His
book, therefore, although it is an attempt to observe the field of public
administration in an introductory way, sets out to develop a set of analytical
principles by which its subject is treated as an area that can be separated out
from within the framework of related social sciences.

107
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

In the public servants’ world, in which they work as practitioners of public


administration, the construction of principles is judged to be unnecessary. But
this is not the case when it is a question of its scientific analysis, on which two
points must be considered. In principle, the fact of defining “principles” may
seem like an attempt to treat public administration as a body of organized
knowledge. Within this, it is important to distinguish the art of public
administration, because anyone who professes practiced on a living thing that
is shaped by the “atmosphere” of public administration according to the agency
or department where they work (Warner, 1947: 54). The concept of atmosphere
formulated by Warner is crucial to the administrative culture, because it
essentially concerns the situational aspect of the art, since intangible influences
emanate from it, as they do in isolated, uncertain environments. Of course,
administrative atmosphere varies over time, making its nature in the mid
nineteenth century different from that of the era when Warner published his
book. By that time, the mechanical typewriter and carbon copies were being
replaced by more advanced mechanical devices and more modern word
processing methods. These tools of the past, that reflect a certain atmosphere,
vanish with the end of an era. Each atmosphere is a determining context of
administrative life, and obviously serves as an incentive to alert the incoming
official and make him sensitive to his personal experience, promoting and
limiting the scope of what he learns at the same time. Such is the locus in which
young British civil servants are educated in the complex problems of public
administration, promoting the domain of the art inherent both to the atmosphere
and to their personal life.

Warner sees atmosphere as a mysterious quality that over the course of


the years is never absent from any effort at social cooperation aimed at dealing
with a shared problem. Another element is administrative style, also a diffuse
and elusive concept, which has an impact on public administration through the
organizations that make it up (Warner, 1947: 2). The administrative
atmosphere, in summary, moves in different directions, some indirectly, others
with more direct impact on the “consumers” of administration; that is, the public
or those who act on its behalf.

108
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

Edgar Norman Gladden

Edgar Norman Gladden was one of the most important administrative


thinkers of Great Britain, and, without doubt, of the world. He joined the civil
service in 1913, serving in the postal service, the Ministry of Labour and the
Ministry of Social Security, to retire in 1958 as a member of the executive class.
He was a practitioner with much experience in office processes, especially in
supervision and management as well as postal procurement, engineering and
contracts, accounting, statistics, social security and personnel training.
However, he practised his profession not only in offices, but also in numerous
other industries in the country where he was needed. But he found his
administrative experience to be insufficient, and without any support from the
government he served, he studied at the University of London, earning a
Bachelor’s and Master’s degree in Economics and a PhD with a thesis in public
administration. He served as a consultant in several African countries as well as
in Mexico. As if following Moreland’s recommendation, Gladden decided to
develop the principles inherent in his art.
He authored the first textbook on the subject in Great Britain and wrote
what is to our knowledge the most comprehensive history of public
administration in the world (Gladden, 1972). His thought, simple but profound,
yielded books that merit special mention; An Introduction to Public
Administration (1945), The Essentials of Public Administration (1956), and
Approach to Public Administration (1966). The first book, which has the merit of
being the original text for the teaching of public administration in Britain, takes a
panoramic tour of the country, starting with the state, which is the element that
holds the science of administration, and then going on to address central
government, local government and other public administrations. Its is clearly
written for teaching, and despite not making grand theoretical claims, develops
its concepts in great depth. The author simply set out to describe the
administrative sectors of government in broad outline, and to provide a
reasonably detailed map of a complex and not always well-defined field. Its
scope also includes the study of government organization, its activities and its
direction. Going deeper, he explores the confusion when speaking of “public
service,” which to some authors means government activity overall, which
Gladden sees as a mistake. Public administration, taken broadly, means,
rather, direction of the affairs of political bodies (Gladden, 1952: XIII, 12).

Nevertheless, Gladden does not ignore the fact that public administration
is outside the formulations made by politicians, legislation and justice, which
make up the broader sphere of politics and government, and of which public
administration is just one part. More precisely, it is only related to the
administrative activities of government, and to managing the affairs of the
people and in their interest. This is because the administrator is a servant, not a
master, and so the study of public administration is associated with a
cooperative activity and not with the use of power. Certainly, public
administration is organized by the community for the fulfillment of its purposes,
for at heart it is public cooperation that joins the state with society (Gladden,
1952: 18). In summary, it is related to those human beings whose job consists
in managing things.

109
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

Twenty years after his first book, Gladden returned to the topic, because
the idea still persisted that administration is an art developed with practice
whose skills are born, not taught. His previous book had been an introductory
text for students about the concepts of public administration. The intent of this
book was to teach those who had no formal education in the field whatsoever;
that is, those who were self-taught in this area. His book Approach to Public
Administration is a teaching aid for public administration. Its purpose is to help a
practicing official perceive what is in sight in his everyday work, but through
constructive and contextual ideas that will not only explain what he does, and
how he does it, but why (Gladden, 1966: 12). Even the definition of public
administration is more grounded, so to speak, for it simply consists of the
management of human affairs. In an immediate way, and no less simply, the
book relates what the self-taught public servant observes around him, an
agenda shaped by the scope of activity of public administration, its resources,
personnel, methods, leadership and control, in addition to awareness of the
need for educating himself as a professional civil servant.

Particularly notable is his idea about the working process of the public
administration by means of three stages; decision, administration and
execution. These must be in different hands: one decides, another administers,
another carries out the action. But Gladden persists in his idea of administration
as a human problem; this is something that deserves to be emphasized,
because it moves away from “managerialism,” which is subordinate in his
version of public administration (Gladden, 1966: 12–14). While it is true that in
general there is an equally universal concept of administration, according to its
existence in organizations of all types, public administration has its own
qualities, different from those of management. Its relationship with the
government, to which is subordinate, determines its character and nature
because it is up to public administration to lead or manage public affairs. Public
administration is a tool of the government, of which it is part.

The title of the book starts with the word “approach” because it proposes
one of the many ways public administration can be visualized; it does not claim
unanimity (Gladden, 1966: 20). It is, however, a focus that seeks to paint public
administration as a universal activity, rather than one inherent to a particular
administrative system –even the British– because otherwise readers of the
book would have no more than an operational and organizational manual, not a
book that aims to educate. Administrative ideas can, in any case, only
transcend personal experiences with the strength of their ideas, abstracting
from practical exercise, and reaching beyond. Gladden does not hope or expect
that the British should lose their reputation for being practical in public
administration, but rather that they also gradually begin to be theoretical.

Between his two teaching texts, Gladden published a book in which he


continued his mission of administrative education directed to students and other
persons interested in the topic. In the Introduction, Gladden set out to make an
extensive map of public administration, explaining where it belongs as a
specialized area of topics in the area of politics, while in The Essentials of
Public Administration he provided an intensive treatment. So, having answered
the question of its form and extension in the first text, in this book he wrote
about its essence and what it does, from a perspective that considers it as an

110
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

activity universal in time and space (Gladden, 1953: 3–4). The result is that the
two books taken together form what Gladden called A Prime in Public
Administration.

This work aims, among other objectives, to place British administrative


thought on the academic world map. In it, Gladden occupies a central location.

111
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

C.H. Sisson
By 1959, when C.H. Sisson’s comparative study on the spirit of the
British administration was published, the science of British public administration
had advanced substantially. The book originated with an article by Sisson which
had appeared years earlier in The Cambridge Journal and is reproduced almost
entirely in Chapter One. Sisson had also served as a civil servant since 1936,
culminating his career as an elite member of the civil service: the administrative
class. It was here that his interest in administrative problems emerged.
However, like Moreland and Gladden, he was more interested in observing the
public administration from a theoretical angle, and the article reflected this. As
he states in the second edition of his book, the essay was not only written by a
civil servant interested in the events of administrative processes, on which he
has something to say, but for a student of government attracted by the practical
angles of administration.

During his sabbatical from the civil service, Sisson toured several
European countries and observed directly how they managed their public
services and the experience of their public administrators as practitioners. This
led him to Paris, Bonn, Vienna, Stockholm and Madrid. In France, for example,
his studies focused on the Council of State, Napoleon’s master work. Six years
since the publication of the first edition of the book, the text underwent a few
changes in emphasis, but its principles remained intact. It is without doubt one
of the most important books of many that were written in postwar Great Britain.
Together with Gladden’s book, it is one of the most important achievements of
British administrative thought of the 1950s, which is worth examining in a more
general context of the science of public administration (Sisson, 1965: 11, 13).
Two chapters are of particular interest for our study; the first concerns the
definition of public administration, which the author says refers more to what a
minister does than to what he thinks he should do. The minister has cabinet
meetings, conversations to persuade representatives, discussions with senior
officials, and other items which are related to his departmental responsibilities.
His activities, thus, take place between the Chamber and his ministerial offices,
including a close relationship with the civil service. In sum, the activities of a
minister are extremely varied, which is why he does not only require assistance,
but also counsel.

The administrators who make up the civil service are therefore


responsible, in principle, for advising the minister on decisions to be taken,
since they assist with the daily activities for which he is responsible. These
include, among other things, writing memorandums and minutes, and preparing
the material that the minister himself uses in his parliamentary debates. The
work of civil servants comprises preparing replies to questions asked by
parliamentarians and answering correspondence and the many queries
received by the minister. The administrators help him with the complex
processes and transactions inherent in his activities as a minister, many of them
subject to the statutes that stipulate his duties, as well as the multitude of
decisions that he must make based on his judgment. The mind of the minister,
therefore, while obviously individual, must relate to a social context in which his
skill and individuality are a decisive part of a government environment of great
complexity.

112
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

When the minister carries out his characteristic work, which is to make
decisions, this implies a proper understanding of the nature of public
administration. The essential character of government, and by extension of
public administration, is the pursuit of effectiveness and maintaining the unity of
the group, a truth that includes both complex and simple administration. Sisson
used a surprising example to personify the public administrator, for he did not
single out a person from his own time, but the celebrated Sextus Julius
Frontinus, a prominent Roman official who was responsible for the
administration of the water supply in Rome (which was a stepping stone to his
later position as governor of Britania). The other notable chapter discusses the
intellect of the administrator, a very important section of the book because here
Sisson uniquely contributes to an understanding of the mental processes
inherent to the work of public servants. When Sisson begins to address the
issue in a comparative vein, he notes that this methodology does not only
involve a contrast between techniques but, more importantly, a confrontation
between cultures (Sisson, 1965: 14–15, 19–20). And what better contrast to
draw than between British and French cultures, both enjoying a reputation for
their singular features? In fact, as he notes, the British official speaks in the
language of Shakespeare, while the French official speaks in the language of
Racine. Indeed, if the administrative culture of each nation exists as a unique,
singular reference in itself, it is the language of each nation that not only
conveys its thought but its way of life perpetuated from the past to the present.
This is what Robert Catherine termed administrative style. The French
reference is important because it comes from a pioneering text on the subject,
which emphasizes how essential the style of written communications in public
offices is, as these represent officials’ way of thinking, as well as the language
of the public function as a professional corporation (Catherine, 1969: 10–14). In
itself, style enhanced the reports by Colbert’s intendants as the clearest
antecedent of a nascent administrative culture.
It is style, considered as a unique configuration of the government
network, that explains why one administration is in itself hierarchical and
centralized, while another is infused with self-managed systems and is highly
decentralized, when each one considered alone is effective in its social and
historical context.

The publication of the works of Warner, Gladden and Sisson left fertile
ground for scientific cultivation of a British civil service which had achieved
respectability on the world scale. At that time, their reputation was as high as
the administrative studies being conducted on both sides of the Atlantic.

113
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

Consolidation of the Science of British


Public Administration

In the 1970s, British thought on public administration was perhaps the


most advanced in the world. This is due in part to the loss of primacy of the
American public administration, which at the time was deep in a crisis that was
called one of “identity,” but consisted more of a loss of creativity. In that decade
the great masters were no longer active, and although the new thinkers worked
hard and were very productive, they never reached the heights of the great men
of the previous decades. British administrative thought found its place, not only
because of the crisis, but because it was superior and there was no other
country in the world to match it. It had by then grown out of its intellectual
childhood and reached full maturity. So it was that the notable figures listed
above gave way to a new generation of administrative thinkers of high
intellectual standing, most notably F.F. Ridley, J.A. Cross, R.G.S. Brown, D.R.
Steel, Peter Self, Michael Hill, Andrew Dunsire and R.J.S. Baker.

F.F. Ridley is a genuine representative of the advances in British


administrative theory. He is a versatile author, whose work includes interest in
the public administration of France, seen in two of his books, Public
Administration in France (1969) and The French Prefectural System (1973). He
is also the author of Government and Administration in Western Europe (1979).
The latter drew the attention of teachers of comparative public administration, a
field of study that seeks to identify a set of features common to England,
France, Germany, Italy, Holland and Belgium. However, a particularly notable
work by Ridley is the introduction he wrote for a book he edited. It contains an
underlying thread that belongs very much to British administrative thought;
namely, that public administration has a close relationship with government and
politics.

In 1975, Ridley published a book that is important for understanding the


British public administration, among other things, because it restores and
reinforces its perspective as a scientific discipline and its links to political
science (Ridley, 1975: 165). One of the main chapters deals with the subject of
public administration, which by then was better delineated in Great Britain, and
Ridley develops and specifies concepts formulated in previous books. In
principle, he stresses that the British public administration attracts a trifold
interest, depending on who examines it, for it holds a different interest for the
academic, the professional and the citizen. Narrowing our interest only to the
first, we note that his purpose can be deduced from the fact that he is
concerned with the study of the country’s public administration; that is, how it is
organized and how it works. The discipline also tries to explain why it works in a
certain way, and how it works, in order to understand the administrative system
overall.

However, the work that most interests us is not a book but an article
which is an unvarnished look at the reasons for the delay in academic study of
the British public administration in the past. Suggestively titled “Public
administration: Cause for Discontent,” the article is dominated by the spirit of
the British administrative political thought of its time. Ridley, a professor of

114
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

political theory and institutions at the University of Liverpool, also draws on the
traditions of the past science of administration on the continent, based on which
he refers to an “absent tradition” in Great Britain. Moreover, with a harshness
that an objective exposure of reality sometimes requires, he states that Great
Britain is an underdeveloped country when it comes to the establishment of
public administration as an academic subject (Ridley, 1972: 65). In fact, it was
only during the period when he wrote his work that a chair of public
administration was created. It was originally held by William Robson, who had
been teaching administrative law at the London School of Economics since
1947. The chair was subsequently held by Peter Self. Ridley mentions the prior
case of the Gladstone Chair at Oxford, which was renamed the Chair of Theory
and Institutions of Government and Public Administration in 1941.

The British academic underdevelopment contrasts with continental


developments achieved much earlier, among which the Prussian cameralist
courses established in 1727 are notable. Frederick William I called for his
officials to be taught the cameral sciences to remedy the deficiencies arising
from their training only in legal matters. Ridley notes that the cameralist
experience not only predates the study of political science, but also policy
sciences, with which it shares more than a few central features (Ridley, 1972:
65). From this successful experience, these disciplines gave rise to the science
of public administration, in which the fields of government action (the what of
the administration) and administrative procedures (the how of the
administration) can be distinguished. The eclipse of cameralism left a gap, but
its replacement in Germany by administrative law was justified by the increased
maneuvering that the state of law (Rechtsstaat) provided to German officials,
compared to the manifest narrowness of action permitted to British civil servants
under the rule of law. Invoking the cameralists, Ridley reclaims the “absent
tradition” for Great Britain, for while on the continent it gave rise to the modern
science of public administration, in English America it produced an approach to
the discipline that deliberately excluded the what and kept only the how. The
Americans emptied the science of administration of its substantive content,
reducing it to adjectives, and some Britons followed their example.
It was not too late to correct this deviation and follow the French example
with its National School of Administration founded in 1946. And so Great Britain
was inspired to establish the Civil Service College. In these types of institutes,
public administration is taught at the university level, because the science of
administration is a matter of learning, not training. Its basis is knowledge for
executing administration, not simply operation. Even outside of universities, the
teaching of public administration is still a question of learning (Ridley, 1972: 67–
68). In universities, the teaching of public administration is based on the what,
in addition to theorizing the why, while most professional schools deal more
with techniques; that is, the how. This is what defines a university professor as
a seeker of knowledge, while the professional instructor is a “utilitarian” man
who imparts the ability to perform. The former pushes the frontiers of knowledge
forward, while the task of the latter is to nourish practical training.
It is true that in the 1970s, traces of the debate about the scientific status
of public administration were still visible in Great Britain, as in other countries;
but the era of skepticism about the need for this discussion had certainly

115
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

passed. That skepticism even caused some authors of books about public
administration to chose to title them with other terms. With a conservative mood
prevailing, they continued to prefer writing semi-professional teaching and
training texts, rather than treatises of the theory of public administration, when
what was needed was the latter type of text. This was why Ridley persevered in
his effort to make administrative science influential, which would eventually free
Britain from academic underdevelopment (Ridley, 1972: 69). In this way, the
British public administration became no longer an object of study based on art
instead of science.
It was a difficult road to travel. Not only must the scarcity of British
universities be considered, in contrast to the colossal educational resources in
the United States, but also the fact that in the latter country its superiority is not
due so much to its enormous institutional massas to the fact that public
administration is treated there as a science and is called a science. In the
United States there are more professors and less practising writing books on
public administration, and when practitioners write them it is because they are
also professors. It was in the United States, not in Great Britain that Max
Weber, who greatly influenced the progress of the discipline, was translated;
there fruitful and original theoretical work was developed because intensive
research programs were already in place. This explains why there is a Herbert
Simon and a Fred Riggs in the United States and not in Great Britain (Ridley,
1972: 72).
But throughout the twentieth century, Great Britain was the country that
was best at learning administrative lessons from abroad, in addition to making a
supreme effort and successfully meeting the challenge of climbing through the
era of art to reach the era of science. Thus Ridley’s generation and those that
follow were, as mentioned earlier, not only a whole new generation in their
country, but the leading edge of administrative thought in the world. Among
British thinkers in the 1970s, J.S. Cross is particularly notable. He wrote a book
specifically intended for the British public administration. It should also be
mentioned that in addition to giving a panoramic view of the public service of his
country, he took care to conceptually place it within an overall concept of
administration, which he defines on the basis of the concept of “cooperative
human effort” (Cross, 1970: 1). The clear influence from the thought of Herbert
Simon should not be underestimated. Cross adds that administration
conceptualized this way is observable in a variety of institutional arrangements;
for example, a business, a union, a church, or a school, not to mention the
family. What interests him, however, is to focus on public administration as the
proper management of a political organization. By this, he draws a substantial
distinction between public and private administration, as well as others; and on
this account characterizes the uniqueness of public administration by its interest
in the formulation and implementation of public policy. It should be noted that
Cross also produced a review of the administrative literature then in vogue.
Among his references are cited the work of Luther Gulick and Fred Riggs, as
well as contemporary compatriots, particularly Brian Chapman and Max
Nicholson.

Cross noted that most of the material he consulted in the study of public
administration had its source in the experience of developed countries, and the

116
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

majority of it dealt with studying organizations over time, examining their


changes and inherent situations. And this can be seen in Great Britain more
than any other country: its administration is more “chronological” than “logical.”
This is why the British public administration is a confusingly heterogeneous
machinery, a place where traditional ministerial departments coexist with a
variety of stranded semi-independent institutions. Originally, the British public
administration mainly concerned itself with the Exchequer, the Foreign Ministry
and the Royal Council, excluding the secretaries of state from its priorities
(Finer, 1949: 755). It should not surprise us that this unique British situation has
been considered by numerous authors to be the cause of many of the problems
that led to Great Britain’s decline as a world power, and the reason for what
Nicholson called “misgovernment” (Nicholson, 1967). Chapman enjoyed high
prestige in his country; while Nicholson was a former civil servant whose work
on misgovernment in Great Britain drew mainly from his experience as a former
civil servant.

Equally notable is the work of R.G.S. Brown and D.R. Steel, a pioneering
text on the study of public administration in Great Britain. Originally published in
1971, the second edition appeared nearly a decade later (1979), after which a
reprint was issued (1983), which is the version we cite. Brown (d. 1978) is noted
for his dedicated administrative career in the public service, while Steel came
from the ranks of academia. Their book is a detailed, comprehensive work on
the organization and functioning of the British public administration, highlighting,
of course, the civil service examination. Significantly influenced by the theory of
organizations, especially by Herbert Simon, the authors enter into a detailed
study of decision-making procedures and processes in the heart of the public
administration. While in the first edition they focused on the theoretical aspects
of public administration in order to more fully understand its functioning, in the
second edition they put more emphasis on information from organizational
studies (Brown, 1983: 11–15). Thus their academic concern focused on an
examination of decision-making, particularly decisions made by senior public
administrators who not only set policy, but also implement it. Among the set of
topics treated in the book, of which a considerable part is devoted to a study of
the civil service, an examination of the problems of management is notable. The
authors made pioneering contributions to this subject.

The book provides a good review of the development of the study of


public administration in Britain, clearly marking the time when the British made a
significant contribution to the worldwide study of public administration. The
administrative France of their time, as well as Germany and other countries, did
not reach the British level of maturity achieved by Great Britain in cultivating
public administration and the science of public administration. In the other
countries, although important books on the science of public administration
were published, the influence of administrative law was still very strong.

Michael Hill's book on the sociology of public administration is a typical


product of the 1970s. It should be noted that two clearly distinguishable
intellectual veins run in this book: first, the import of organizational schemes
developed in the United States and brought to Great Britain, while sociology
gradually exercised an increasing influence on the study of public administration
in that country (Hill, 1972: VII–VIII). The second, parallel, intellectual vein is

117
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

visible in British tradition, which appears in an examination of obvious problems


in the organization and mainly in the civil service. Viewed in a simple way, from
the perspective of our time, the work does not seem to make a major
contribution to the study of public organization; however, the very fact of
importing American sociological analysis to Great Britain was a breakthrough,
because these contributions were significant during the 1970s.
Within the pages of the book, we find two topics particularly important.
One concerns the problem of administrative discretion, and the other deals with
the differentiation between generalist and specialist officials, an issue on which
Britain is not so much a receiver of ideas, but a producer and transmitter of
public administration theory. We cannot help noting the timeliness of the work
when it was published, not only to the British setting, but to all persons
interested in the study of public administration during the 1970s, when analyses
of complex organizations were making a decisive contribution to a better
understanding of public administration which not a few had been observing from
an elementary perspective.

Andrew Dunsire, one of the most eminent British thinkers, is the author of
one of the milestones in British administrative thought, mainly because he goes
deeply into topics not often treated by his colleagues. His 1973 book is one of
the best treatments of the semantic problems of the word “administration,” as
well as a state-of-the-art account of the discipline in the United States and his
country. It notably includes an extensive bibliography, listing not only commonly
known authors, such as Luther Gulick, Henri Fayol, Paul Appleby and Herbert
Simon, but great figures from the broader spectrum of academic work such as
Lorenz von Stain, Henri de Saint-Simon, Herbert Spencer, Gustav Schmoeller
and Max Weber.

Dunsire is aware that in the past his country had made contributions to
the study of public administration, as is evident in the books by Walter Bagehot
and Jeremy Bentham, which contribute to knowledge of government,
management, centralization and decentralization (Dunsire, 1973: 76). These
works are not, however, classified as administrative science in the sense in
which the term is used in the continent, because they do not come from the
pens of academics or nor do they conform to the academic style that prevails in
the thought of academics. Certainly, the majority of books on public
administration are written by those who are not practitioners; that is, teachers
and academics with little interest in the practice of civil service officials.
Obviously these types of books are not administrative training manuals,
although they could be used for that purpose; instead their design reflects more
general educational goals, which include an equally general readership, within
which the practitioners themselves could be counted.

So as not to put the tasks of the practitioner in contraposition to those of


the academic, Dunsire paints a setting in which there is common ground and
collaboration, consisting of the study and teaching of public administration (and
this is neither administrative training nor a theory of public administration). The
practitioner is not only he who administrates, nor is the theorist completely
divorced from practice. At the time Dunsire’s book was published, there was in
Great Britain neither a mature academic profession nor a group of professors

118
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

fully recognized as scholars of public administration, except for a chair at


Strathclyde and a department at the University of Aston in Birmingham. Rather
there were groups devoted to public administration and social administration,
and societies, courses, and programs in nursing administration; as well as
programs in municipal, industrial, business, and archive administration, among
others (Dunsire, 1973: 98–99, 204–205). As can be seen, the common word in
all these programs was “administration” and the same word was the reason for
the existence of the Administrative Staff College at Henley, an institution
dedicated to training administrators of all kinds. Due to the small number of
British scholars of public administration at the time, most of them were still
interested in a solid, conscientious education than in in-depth studies; that is,
they maintained a reluctance to confront the highly theoretical aspects.

To our knowledge there is no text offering a thorough, profound


exploration of the word “administration,” which would be very important for
anyone interested in semantic precision, which is always important.
R.J.S. Baker is another notable name from the 1970s. He had previously
been a civil servant in the postal service, serving as assistant secretary from
1951 to 1971. After retiring from the service, he devoted his time to writing his
book at the invitation of William Robson. Barker wrote an article on organization
theory and the public sector originally published in 1969, and reprinted in
Chapman and Dunsire’s anthology cited below.
In Barker’s article, he has, as a long-serving civil servant, a very clear
vision of what he defines as the operational functions of government
departments. These are different from manufacturing processes and what
public utilities do, he says, because these functions are regulatory and are
based on the legal powers exercised over the citizenry (Baker, 1971: 137–138).
These operating functions include many public services, and have to do with
the relationship between the central government and local authorities, as well
as with industry, unions and other institutions. By their nature, they are carried
out through persuasion, consultation and advice, and if we must not forget that
this is a broad sense of regulatory activities, we can not avoid the fact that
discretion must be exercised in the office of public affairs. Finally, we must not
forget that the government, whether at the national or local level, always
operates in the real world made up of human beings, very different from a world
of automata. It should be added that these functions are performed within the
flow of a continuous process of changing activities that evoke a concept of
policy where not only creation but also adaptation prevail; for a recently
established government both formulates policies and adapts others that it has
inherited.
Baker draws a distinction between private and public administration.
Concerning the latter, as well as public administrators, it must be admitted that
they are not generally loved. After beginning with claim, Baker devotes
considerable space to the defining the words “administration” and “public,” to
which he adds a study of the words “policy” and “management.” For example,
when addressing the latter, he begins with the word “manage” whose origin is
considered not entirely clear, but containing an echo of the word “manège”
which suggests the idea of the domestic or the physical collection of things,

119
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

persons, or animals. He also discusses the word “policy,” which Baker relates to
government, or a decision of what is to be done, and “administration,” for doing
so. As can be observed, administration is related to the idea of serving and
assisting in the making of policy. This being said, he notes that administration is
related to forms and structures, functions, tasks and processes in public affairs
(Baker, 1973: 12, 17). Having come this far, he does not merely decide to stop,
but goes backwards, stating that since all science is based on the formulation of
systematic hypotheses and that thought is subject to proof by experiment and
observation, it is not visible in the object of public administration, which is
constantly flowing, often observable only from within, and sometimes at a
distance.

The most notable part of the book, despite what he writes at the end, is
its spirit of scientific inquiry, something which the British have sparingly but to
which they have a right, for which they deserve credit. This speaks of the
indisputable possibility that an experienced person; that is, a person shaped in
the practice of the daily affairs of public administration, can certainly contribute
to a conceptual way not only of enriching activities in daily life, but of a complex
conceptualization of the theory of public administration.

120
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

Chapter 10

CONTEMPORARY BRITISH ADMINISTRATIVE THOUGHT


It might seem strange that from the 1990s on –and perhaps earlier–
British administrative thought also led the world. In a very short time Great
Britain, a practical, self-governing country, territorially and functionally
decentralized to an extreme degree, turned into a publicly administered,
strongly centralized nation based on a theoretical underpinning, which
stimulated the creation of administrative ideas that came to be world leaders in
academic circles.

The Theory of Public Administration

Over a prolonged period that began in the 1940s, a modest body of


academics in various universities involved in the scientific study of public
administration was taking shape, and their work was gaining ground and
reputation. In the early 1980s, when the privatization of the British public
administration was beginning to get underway, there was already a group of
professors critically monitoring this process and subjecting it to a scientific
analysis. This group led a debate against implementers of the reforms and their
apologists. Alongside the British leaders of the privatization and new
managerial reforms, an analytical circle formed, consisting of public
administrators who maintained ongoing criticism of the movement and predicted
its negative results. These included Peter Self, Richard Rose, Patrick Dunleavy,
Christopher Hood, Vincent Wright and Les Metcalfe.

Peter Self was one of the most authoritative administrative thinkers of


Great Britain as well as in the world. One of his major works, treated here, is a
study of the process of government in his home country, as well as
administrative experiences in the United States and France. Self notes that part
of the theoretic deficit of the public administration is that practical case studies
and theoretical interpretations are insufficiently linked. Most studies focus
disproportionately on the former to the neglect of the latter (Self, 1974: 11–12).
It must be emphasized that academics are usually more interested in
diagnosing the insides of the public administration and drawing highly specific
conclusions than proposing schemes that would be more general and therefore
more useful for understanding the bigger picture. Self assumes that such
problems are part of what he calls the “politics of administration;” that is, the
relationship between political problems and the analysis of organizations and
behavior within them.

One notable problem is that many studies of public administration


approach organizations not only from the experiences of private management,
but also with an emphasis on highly specific and factual problems. Thus private
management experts propose a set of solutions for public administration that
relate to a different reality, while scholars of public administration tend to treat a
miscellaneous assortment of issues with little in common. It should also be
noted that public administration is often categorized under political science or
administrative law, while the clear conflict between managerial analysis and

121
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

studies of the administrative process tends to multiply and make public


administration a “Cinderella” subject that does not make major contributions to
its own scientific advancement (Self, 1974: 15). The result of this is a radical
divide between administrative accountability and administrative effectiveness.
Self’s book, besides providing an astute overview of the state of the art in public
administration of its time, is important because of its significant contribution to
an understanding of the government process in Great Britain as well as
demonstrating the scientific progress of the country in the worldwide context.
Peter Self is one of the most read academic authors in Great Britain, as
well as being one of the scholars who contributed the most to the lines of
research that administrative thought acquired from management studies from a
public administration perspective. In fact, Self can be described as a precursor
of what would come to be the critical analysis of the new public management,
along with Christopher Hood. In his work on bureaucracy and management,
Self took a first exploratory approach to defining the nature of bureaucracy and
management, seeking points of contact despite their underlying differences
(Self, 1971: 61). He based this on the theory of organizations that was then in
vogue. Self found that in the usual administrative literature, bureaucracy tended
to be seen as a government process, while management was normally
identified with the activity of private businesses. However, by using the theory of
organizations, he suggested that common reference points can be found
between the two spheres that go beyond the idea of the “bureaucratic man” and
the “economic man.”
Self was no stranger to long-standing theory, but since the mid-1960s he
steered toward to what would become the new public management, then
headed by Friedrich Hayek, which held that the state should be less
bureaucratic and more managerial. But beyond this extreme view of state and
management, Self notes that managerial features can be identified in
government, mainly in connection with planning operations, decentralization,
and techniques applied to finance and personnel management. (Self, 1971:
69–73, 80–81). He summarizes it in three concepts; planning, devolution and
management. Most notable is his idea on the devolution of decision-making,
which is closely related to problems of centralization and decentralization, an
issue of enormous interest in Great Britain, especially if we take into
consideration that a decentralized government shows balance between
functional needs and management mechanisms. Without resorting to old
patterns that treat public administration and business management as equals,
but neither seeking a dichotomy; Self tries to find a pattern common to both
through management, in order to contribute to a better understanding of both
fields and establish an ongoing flow between government and the private sector
and continuous dialogue between government and private businesses.

Few British thinkers from before the 1980s are known outside their
country, even those whose works were translated from English to other
languages. One is Christopher Hood, author of a book translated into Spanish
some time ago, which has not received the attention it deserves (Hood, 1979).
This book is a favorite of its author, to the extent that much later in one of his
more famous works, he revisited topics that merit reconsideration (Hood, 1998).
The latter, which includes the “art of the state” in an overall analysis and

122
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

consists of topics discussed several years earlier, is one of the great books of
contemporary public administration.

Hood is definitely one of the most important British thinkers today, being
not only responsible for the most important critical work on the new public
management in Great Britain, but also contemporary contributions on the theory
of public administration on the basis of the humanities. In a book coauthored
with Michael Jackson, he noted that one of the central problems in the theory of
contemporary public administration arises because the emergence of the new
managerial paradigms have raised doubts about its value and usefulness, and
that the potential supremacy these paradigms could acquire can not be
discounted (Hood and Jackson, 1991: 157–158). However, the biggest problem
is not so much that these paradigms could prevail but that their dominance is
based on fiction, not truth, which generates a double epistemological problem of
displacing the theory of public administration but without filling the resulting gap.
Therefore, the dangers underlying the myths in public administration can never
be overemphasized, for they are precisely the source of the econocrats’ and the
new managerial consultocrats’ power. Their preeminence stems from their use
of metaphor and fiction as weapons of communication, which explains the
number of neoclassical economists recruited as persuaders in the
administrative debate through the use of fiction rather than truth. Hence the
need to again study the use of rhetoric and metaphor in public administration as
effective vehicles for persuasion. This could explain the persuasiveness of
neoclassical economics in the administrative debate: because of its fictions
rather than its truths.

The theory of public administration could be strengthened by the use of


the humanities, beginning with rhetoric capable of creating a doctrine that links
theory and policy as a powerful channel for persuasion. This would mean
understanding the key factor of approval, whose first element is the symmetry
that represents the production of harmonic linguistic solutions to the social
problems experienced by an audience. Metaphor, in turn, is a mode of thought
which is useful when an eventual proof can not be achieved. This is followed by
ambiguity, which is the ability to simultaneously talk to people with different
interests and points of view; that is, to communicate the same idea to a
diversified audience. A fourth element refers to the selection of maxims and
arguments for successful persuasion to arrive at the desired conclusion (Hood
and Jackson, 1991: 26–27, 467–488). The fifth element is removal of doubt by
the persuaders, similar to the way an audience watches a play; that is,
appealing to the sense of urgency to shorten the debate and continue on to a
timely action. The last element, which is difficult to achieve, is to justify private
benefit in terms of public interest. Two further elements that must be considered
are hermeneutics and persuasion –through dialectic and rhetoric–which are the
most powerful forces of debate in public administration to influence an audience
which helps shape it. Hood and Jackson explained that the administrative
debate consists in advocating doctrines by citing common sense maxims and
selecting examples that ostensibly vindicate these maxims. Defined in this way,
the field of administrative doctrine appears to be a place of interaction and
discussion where the domain of an idea is not final or perpetual; rather
dominance cycles through various ideas because the debate is rhetorical.

123
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

A vision like this warns of the current state of the science of public
administration as it is universally considered because, as pointed out by Hood
and Jackson, a public administration that consistently fails in exploring the link
between argument and acceptance is negligent to the core (Hood and Jackson,
1991: 485).

124
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

Administrative Ideas In The New Managerial Age

The barely mature British science of administration soon faced a


determined, tenacious siege from an emerging focus, which, though said to be
novel, itself had long-standing antecedents: the new public management. After
a decade of the implementation of privatization programs, that focus was
consistently visible and soon not only gained academic ground alongside public
administration, but pushed it out of its place of honor, although not a few
authors judged that it aimed to replace it.
It is not difficult to identify the first targets of the privatization programs,
identified in a sharp attack against the state because of their “size.” The
problem was addressed directly by one of the most knowledgeable experts on
government issues, Richard Rose, for whom the organization par excellence,
the state, has the government as its official expression and its embodiment
(Rose, 1984: 3). In fact, since the state is immeasurable since it constitutes an
association of power, it is the government that should be assessed on terms of
greatness or magnitude, avoiding references to its “size.” Indeed, the greatness
of the state, its degree of complexity and its level of public performance is a
heroic feat of modern Western civilization, a triumph against supra-state and
infra-state powers. Yet more relevant than its size is the idea that it not be
criticized for its large size, but for being deficient, since the vices or virtues
resulting from its scale are accidental, not problems intrinsic to its nature.
Above all it should be understood not as a mere formal organization, but
as an active process of the mobilization of financial standards and resources
through public servants. Thus magnitude should be understood as a potential
factor incurring deficiencies because of the multiplication of its organizations,
which can hinder communication processes and produce internal paralysis; and
the leaders should learn to cope with the problem as an inherent factor of the
modern state. Indeed, the government itself is large due to the demands of
society and its impact on society, and because of the amount of resources it
has.

Therefore, the problem of government is not its size, but the effect it can
cause in terms of the quality of public services provided. The direct and
immediate causes of the size of government are the public goods it provides to
society, particularly education, health and social security; the scale of their
quantities may exceed the management capacity of government, producing
deficiencies. The harmful nature of the government’s deficiencies by reason of
its magnitude lie in the political consequences they produce, mainly in the
degree of administrative efficiency and political consensus.

Its size is a product of the progress of Western civilized societies.


Governments grew in size over a period of less than a hundred years, from the
second half of the nineteenth century, based on the modern conceptualization
of government that includes more than merely law enforcement and defense
(Rose, 1984: 3). The ingredients that nurtured this growth were the transition
from an agrarian to a industrial society, popular support for democratic
governments, and the progress of representative regimes. Government size

125
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

and democracy have grown hand in hand. The size of the government is in
direct proportion to its duties towards society. Lastly, size and growth should not
be confused. Size is determined by growth, which gives it its degree and scope,
and explains the suitable proportions favorable to public administration. In great
measure, size represents a stage of the growth process, as can be observed in
Western countries, whose governments experienced their highest growth rates
in the 1930s. Because size is a fluid state which is determined by growth, the
rate of progression was lower from the 1980s on, and resulted in a change in
the size of government, as we now know.

In parallel to studies on the size of government, analyses of the new


managerial reform obstinately focused on defining the scope of state activity.
One of the main issues was therefore the state, particularly from the point of
view of the scope of its functional limits, which many new managerial writers
wished to restrict to the maximum. From the perspective of Patrick Dunleavy
and Christopher Hood, the state, even under its “bureaucratic” model, is vital in
industries where the government needs to do more than simply choose from a
menu of goods and services whose origin and process are in the hands of the
market beyond the control of the state (Dunleavy and Hood, 1995: 14). The new
managerial reform, however, proceeded by means of measures unable to limit
the essential functions of government, resulting in the possibility that the basic
core of governmental powers would be formulated incrementally. This was done
through a process whereby solutions from abroad were not applied uniformly in
different areas of administrative activity. The absence of opposing pressure to
identify, protect, maintain and develop a core of basic areas of responsibility
could jeopardize the proper functioning of national governments. As can be
observed, what was being elucidated for the new managerial reform was that
the essential problems of the state are not simple operational issues of cost and
short-term responses, but should be a constitutional debate that affects the
bases and capabilities of politics.

To Vincent Wright, in turn, an exploration of the managerial reform of the


state revealed clear inconsistencies, contradictions and hidden costs, since it
exposed the limits of a purely minimalist, market-oriented privatization. The
problem, therefore, lies in the nature of the state, although it is true that markets
can be useful to help ensure that producers do not dominate, and take
consumers into account. The state, with its dense hierarchical structures, can
not be efficient nor responsive to demand, but replacing hierarchies by markets
is a difficult measure (Wright, 1997: 40–41). This is also true when it comes to
privatization of the state because, although its context is democracy and the
rule of law, the government does take authoritarian decisions. It does so
because this is how it insures equality and accountability with an organizational
basis rooted in values of impartiality, objectivity, consistency, predictability,
legality and legitimacy. The government of the state operates according to rules
based on diverse and often contradictory political, legal, institutional, technical,
social and economic reasons. This is because much of its functional system
requires some form of “Weberianism,” emphasizing uniformity, impartiality,
anonymity and legal standards.

Wright notes that it was appealing to believe that government somewhat


resembles a business, but trying to make government work like a company

126
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

raises troublesome issues because they operate with conflicting values, such
as equality and efficiency. However, much of the new managerial reform
strategy of the state has been clouded by the efficiency, and is based on a
simplistic view of bureaucracy, a hallucinatory adulation of the market, an
idealized view of the private sector, the ignoring of unexpected costs of the
reform, excessive optimism about the practical results, and most importantly, a
wrong view of the state (Wright, 1997: 39–40). This is the reason why the public
sector is more disoriented from the effect of the changes stemming from the
administrative reforms. Moreover, dismantling the administrative system is risky,
especially if it is identified with the Weberian model, which is an ideal type
whose characteristics are fictitious or are absent in some countries while other
attributes remain important, and in other countries they configure a regulatory
public administration.

The new managerial reform progressed quite differently in different


countries, such as Sweden and Great Britain. Under the impact of convergent
pressures, similar strategies were implemented in different countries, such as
attempts to stabilize the size of the public sector and salaries of officials,
privatization, provision of transparency, creation of new bodies, and the
introduction of cutting-edge technologies (Wright, 1997: 40–41). Particularly
notable is the enduring significance of the diversity of national contexts; Great
Britain privatized, but also centralized; while privatization in France took place
alongside decentralization; and in Spain there was radical decentralization with
relatively little privatization. Finally, while the new public management had a
determinant effect on some countries, such as Great Britain, in others, such as
Germany, there was barely any effect.

The result of the new managerial reform that Wright was able to observe
at the start of the twenty-first century was that in Europe the state is defined
more in terms of its duties, and so the leaders, like the Crusaders in the Middle
Ages seeking the Holy Grail of the core of the state, managed to adjust the
public administration to that essential core. The state finds itself to be more
divided as a result of internal competition for funds, and more disaggregated
following decentralization and deconcentration. It is also farther from the citizen
because the implementation was transferred to non-state actors, more
deregulated through a variety of formulas, and more denationalized by the dual
effects of globalization and regionalization.
It is perhaps a paradox that the director of the European School of Public
Administration is a Briton; that is, a citizen of the country most resistant to full
incorporation into the European Union, but whose eventual incorporation into
the continent seems inescapable. Les Metcalfe became, obviously, the expert
on the topic of integration of European public administrations, whose central
problem has been precisely the extent of the sphere of action of each
respective nation-state in the Union.
In the 1990s, a period during which European integration advanced
towards consolidation, the outcome was different (Metcalfe, 1997: 45). When
the Treaty on European Union was signed in early 1992, it left undecided how
the political regime common to long-standing states would be configured when
they had different political cultures and uncertain borders left over from past

127
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

wars. Metcalfe observed an environment where two different visions of that


regime emerged; namely, a federation of states or a federal state. The latter
approach would imply a commitment to gradually establishing a firm union
whose ultimate objective would be to create a European federal state, with the
intermediate forms of integration being steps leading to that goal. However,
member nations are suspicious of being absorbed by the European federal
state implied by this design (Metcalfe, 1995: 27). As can be observed, the
underlying motives are not only administrative, but political, favoring a
federalism of states as the first choice, which makes the problem of transferring
power from member states to common institutions more complex. Basically, the
European states do not want to stop being nations.

This being the case, the issue changes to one of developing institutional
flexibility, which, however, has a purely operational characterization, and
involves the separation of politics and administration. Moreover, flexibility has
resulted a distancing from the essential principle of the process of European
union, that all members must participate equally (Metcalfe, 1997: 50). One
option proposed is a parallel reform of the national public administrations and
the EU administration. Another option is adopting the new managerial paradigm
from the corporate world as an organization–network model to provide the
adaptive capacity to make organizations more sensitive to change. But since
this concerns the design of the European Commission, the administrative body
of the EU, Metcalfe assumes it involves a potential organization–network based
on a tradition different from that derived from business experience, since its
concern is to enhance the cooperation skills of the organizations involved in
joint management. The role of an organization–network as visualized in this
context is therefore to define the obstacles to effective collaboration, and
promote joint activity to overcome them (Metcalfe, 1995: 26–27). This last
option, which is opposite to the business perspective, makes it imperative to
thoroughly reconsider the managerial proposals that emphasize short-term
results and are subject to financial returns, since ongoing policies require
methods very different from short-term pragmatic solutions.
Since it fell to him to design the organization–network, Metcalfe opted for
a deeply rooted notion: the healthy prevailing system of European politics that
described the formal scheme of public procurement contracts,
telecommunications, and common agricultural policy and social policy. As
defined, the system is a set of values, standards, principles and practices that
guide the behavior of the actors involved in it (Metcalfe, 1995: 26–27).
Moreover, their new meanings transcend purely political concepts, and involve
economic concepts in which the standards are not based on coercive threats.
The interpretation of system within this view goes beyond conventional
definitions of standards because it includes both standards and ability to
implement them. The idea of organization–networks endowed with flexibility
facilitates a functional definition of each national state, with its regime, as well
as the common system within an idea of federalism where each state
perpetuates itself, giving a life of its own to a European Union that is not merely
the sum of its parts.

The new managerial philosophy appeared to dominate the study of the


British public administration, but it did not. Thomas Kuhn argued that academic

128
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

research publications may be an indicator of the state of the art, reflecting the
relationship between the old and new paradigms and establishing which of the
two predominates (Kuhn, 1970). In Great Britain, publications such as Public
Administration (PA) and Public Policy and Administration (PPA), are public
administration research journals. Public Money and Management (PMM) and
International Journal of Public Sector Management (IJPSM), in turn, represent
the new public management paradigm. As one administrative thinkers claimed,
the fact that there are two journals about the new public management is not a
coup d’état against public administration, but a parallel development (Boyne,
1996: 688–691). Also, PMM and IJPSM do not have the prestige of Public
Administration, and so they have not shaken the foundations, only caused a
small tremor. An analysis of issues of Public Administration and Public Policy
and Administration published from 1976 to 1995 divided the articles into three
types; policy, public management (public choice, management, markets,
purchasing, human resources management and information management), and
miscellaneous. The result of the study showed that the new public management
made advances, but at the expense of disciplines other than political science.
Political science articles were largely unchanged between 1970 and 1990.

The conclusion that can be observed from this analysis suggests that
public management presented a challenge, but did not institute a scientific
revolution. Moreover, public administration did not suffer an “identity crisis,” as
some academics claim. This has been confirmed by comparing the number of
academic degree programs in public administration in the British university
system, where they are dominant; in fact, only two public administration
programs were transferred to business schools. The main research programs
are carried out in public administration schools, not business schools, where
they are an endogenous development. In short, there is no direct feud between
public administration and the new public management nor a war between
hostile paradigms or between the old and the new paradigm.

Perhaps the best example of this is Christopher Hood’s book on the art
of the state, which retains the classicism of discipline when he recalls the
contributions of distinguished scholars of the field, and the reincorporation of
ancient subjects such as rhetoric. The book, which was published at the end of
the twentieth century, runs parallel to much-cited public management studies,
on which Hood is an expert, but also public administration studies, with the
names of their main topics changed to fit them into public management. On a
basis that builds on the administrative tradition, he defines public management
as the problem of designing and operating public services, and itemizing the
implementation of government tasks relating to the executive (Hood, 1998: 3).
The book does not propose to give last word in this respect; rather, it offers
constructive ideas and proposals on public administration, which attest to the
degree of health it enjoyed even when the new public management was in its
heyday.

Today, the public administration paradigm continues to dominate in


Great Britain, whereas the model of the new public management inherent to
privatization faded with denationalization.

129
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

EPILOGUE

Great Britain may appear to be a still pond, motionless from the effect of
long-standing conventions which all seem to date from a distant past. But such
is not the case.

One can say, rather, to paraphrase Joseph Schumpeter, that the life
force of Great Britain, with its center in England, is “creative destruction.” The
relative proportions of creation and destruction are not always balanced, and
one or another tends to predominate in a given era. So it was with the Anglo
Saxon “predation” that so completely dismantled Roman civilization on the
island, which not only leaves the impression that Roman culture had little depth
in Britania, but the fact that its traces are so faint paints a misleading picture of
the legacy left by the Romans. The Anglo-Saxons were left with so little creative
leeway that they never established a nation during all their centuries, nor did
they defend their island or establish a civilization. Destruction is also evident in
the migration and settlement of the Anglo-Saxons, who pushed the Britons back
to less civilized regions, where coexistence with primitive Celts led to their
regression.

The balance in this two-sided creative destruction is more visible in


invasion, revolution and expropriation, which are the most prominent features of
the British historical process. The wave of invasions, especially the Nordic
invasion, permanently revitalized the Germanic strain in the island’s people, and
while only some of them built civilization and political order, it was enough to
shape its character. The Danes annexed England to their empire in the time of
Canute, and the Normans, “detached Vikings,” joined it to Europe forevermore.
The revolutions of 1640 and 1789 accelerated British modernization of their
political regime many years ahead of other countries. Great Britain is a country
of expropriation, starting with the displacement of the Britons at the hands of the
Anglo-Saxons, who in turn were displaced by the Normans. A new regime was
created after each expropriation, looking to the Norman government as an
emblem, until the nationalizations of the 1940s by which the public company
was created. What can be said about the industrial revolution, which caused the
original accumulation of capital that separated workers from the means of
production?

There are two further formulas of creative destruction: delegation and


devolution. Through delegation, by means of a generalized measure of the
public burden, in the fourteenth century communities had to take on and
support their own administration on behalf of the crown. Through devolution,
that which was formerly delegated was returned to the central government
throughout the twentieth century, ending a century-long process of
administrative creativity that led first to self-government and then to the
centralized regime. One of the greatest representative examples of the
universal history of public administration is precisely self-government, described
by one of the thinkers who knew it best.

130
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

As we mentioned in a previous chapter, Rudolf Gneist gave a rigorous


explanation that the true essence of self-government lies in the following
characteristic features: 1) self-government is an administrative system of the
state; 2) all self-government arises, therefore, as a political commission given to
the commons; and 3) all self-government is based on the political principle of
the right of appointment. Thus the highest self-government authorities were
upheld by the principle of royal appointment, be they sheriffs, justices of the
peace, military commanders or military officers. In the time of the Normans, it
was established that these functions are the right of the king and the obligation
of the state. Under subsequent jurisdiction of the Privy Council of Parliament
and the royal judges, they were never returned to the political estates nor to an
elected position (Gumplowicz, 1877: 310–311).

At that time, the scholarly pen of John Stuart Mill confirms that the
Crown, through the Lord Lieutenant, continued to appoint mainly from among
those who already occupied the posts as local officials, with the exception of
those who did not carry out their duty adequately, or who were of a different
political stripe than the monarch, in which case they were removed from office.
They were wealthy people, an oligarchy tolerated by the king, but which lost its
appeal over time, exacerbating the main flaw of self-government, which has
been the caliber of its officials (Mill, 1861: 215, 227, 254). New recruits were
trained by means of apprenticeship, but self-government as a political training
school yielded ever less competent graduates. When the rural oligarchy lost its
ability to provide suitable candidates for public service, the middle class made
an inadequate substitute as a recruitment pool. In the end, Mill preferred
reforms that would departmentalize local government, similar to the central
regime. The minimum of tasks related to the nation having been left to the
center, local government, itself in decline, at least should retain the simple
administrative tasks, a difficult distribution of tasks to accomplish. Given that
local government is similar to the central government, and its performance is
declining, it is hard to imagine that local government can limit itself to a few
tasks of national interest.

Great Britain is also a country in which the parts of its regime have been
able to be function in response to the era in question. Decentralization, then
centralization worked effectively at different times in the same country. Self
government, the seed of the parliamentary constitution and the locus of
individual and communal freedom, functional in times past, today has survived
although worn down by the administrative centralization of local life, municipal
corporations and bureaucratization, all of which are functional in the present
day.

Great Britain is also a country of paradoxes: its history has followed not only
different routes but opposite directions to those of the European continent.
While the lands across the Channel centralized, Great Britain decentralized;
when they bureaucratized, the island de-bureaucratized. While absolutism
flourished on the continent, Great Britain cultivated its self-government; when
continental professional civil servants were trained and even educated in
special schools, here the public administration entrusted its positions to

131
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

amateurs recruited in their local areas.

132
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Appleby, Paul (1949), Policy and administration, Birmingham, University of


Alabama Press.

---------- (1953), Public administration in India: report of a survey, New Delhi,


Government of India.

---------- (1961), Public administration for a Welfare state, London, Asia


Publishing House.

Aharoni, Yair (1988), “El Reino Unido: la Transformación de Actitudes”, Vernon,


Raymond, La promesa de la privatización, México, Fondo de Cultura
Económica, 1992, pp. 31-64.

Bagby, Philip (1952), Culture and history, London and New York, Longmans,
Green and Co.

Bagehot, Walter (1867), The English constitution, London, Oxford University


Press, 2001.

Bagshawe, Richard (1990), Roman roads, Buckinghamshire, Shire


Publications.

Baker, R.J.S. (1969), “Organization Theory and Public Management”.


Chapman, Richardy A. Dunsire, Style in administration: reading in British public
administration, London, George Allen & Unwin ltd. Published for The Royal
Institute of Public Administration, 1971, pp. 137-138.

---------- (1973), Administrative theory and administration, London, Hutchinson


University Library.

Banerjea, Pramathanath (1916), Public administration in ancient India, London,


McMillan and Co.

Bakounine, Michel (1873), Estatisme et anarchie, Liden, E. J. Brill, 1967.

Barker, Ernest (1944), La Gran Bretaña y el pueblo británico, México, Ediciones


Minerva.

---------- (1944), The development of public services in western Europe: 1660


1930, London, Oxford University Press, 1945.

Barrot, Odilon, M. (1861), De la centralisation et de ses effets, Paris, H.


Dumineray, Éditor.

Bede, (731), The ecclesiastical history of the English people, Oxford, Oxford
University Press). Edited with an Introduction and Notes by Judith McClure y
Roger Collins, 1999.

133
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

Beneyto, Juan (1958), Historia de la administración pública española e


hispanoamericana, Madrid, Editorial Aguilar.

Bennett, Julian (1988), Towns in roman Britain, Haverfordwest, Shire


Publications.

Berthélemy, H. (1900), Traité élémentaire du droit administrative, Paris, Libraire


Arthur Rousseau, 1926, onziéme édition.

Birley, Anthony (1964), Life in roman Britain, London, B.T. Bartford, ltd, 1976.

---------- (2005), The roman government of Britain, London, Oxford University


Press.

Black, E.W. (1995), Cursus publicus: the infrastructure of government in roman


Britain, Oxford, Bar British Series.

Blunt, Edward, (1937), The I.C.S: the Indian civil service, London, Faber and
Faber Limited.

Bluntschli, Gaspar (1876), Derecho público universal, Madrid, J. Góngora


Impresor, sin año, dos tomos.

Bluntschli, J.K. (1885), The theory of State, Oxford, at The Clerendon Press.

Bonnin (1808), Charles-Jean, De l’importance et de la nécessité d’un code


administratif, a Paris, chez Garnery, Libraire.

Boyne, George (1996), “The Intellectual Crisis in British Public Administration: is


Public Management the Problem or the Solution?”, Public Administration, vol.
74, winter.

Breeze, David (2002), Roman forts in Britain, Haverfordwest, Shire


Publications.

Boulding, Kenneth (1953), The organizational revolution, Chicago, Quadrangle


Books, 1968.

Boutmy, Émile (1895), Le recrutement des administrateurs coloniaux, Paris,


Armand Colin & Cie, Éditeurs.

Bradley, Henry (1947), “Language”. Bailey, Cyril, The legacy of Rome, Oxford,
at Clarendon Press.

Bridges, Norman, “Portrait of a Profession”. Chapman, Richard y A. Dunsire


(1971), Style in administration: reading in British public administration, London,
George Allen & Unwin ltd. Published for The Royal Institute Public
Administration, pp. 44-60.

134
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

Brown, R.G.S. and D.R. Steel (1971), The administrative process in Britain,
London and New York Methuen, 1983.

Burckhardt, Jacob (1961), Reflexiones sobre la historia universal, México,


Fondo de Cultura Económica.

Burnham, James (1941), The managerial revolution, New York, The John Day
Company.

Caldecot, Thomas (1959), Los bizantinos, México, Joaquín Mortiz, 1981.

Catherine, Robert (1947), Le style administratif, Paris, Éditions Albin Michel,


1969.

Cross, J.A. (1970), British public administration, London, University, Tutorial


Press, 1975.

Crummy, Philip (1997), City of victory: the story of Colchester, britain’s first
roman town, Colchester, Colchester Archaeological Trust, 1997.

Chadwick, Edwin (1885), The evils of disunity in central and local


administration, London, Logmans, Green and Co., 2009.

Chapman, Brian (1959), The profession of government, London, Unwin


University Press, 1970.

Chapman, Richard and A. Dunsire (1971), Style in administration: reading in


British public administration, London, George Allen & Unwin ltd, Published for
The Royal Institute of Public Administration.

Chrimes, S.B. (1952), An introduction to the administrative history of medieval


England, Oxford, Dasil Blackwell.

Dicey, A.V. (1886), Introduction to the study of the law of the constitution,
London, MacMillan an Co., Limited, 1915, eight edition.

Donahue, John (1989), The privatization decision, New York, Basic Books.

Donato, Nicolás (1760), El hombre de Estado, México, Tipografía Popular,


1904, tres tomos.

Drewry, Gavin and Tony Butcher (1988), The civil service today, London, Basil
Blackwell.

Dunleavy, Patrick (1986), “Explaning the Privatization Boom: Public Choice


versus Radical Approach”, Public Administration, vol. 64, num. 1, pp. 13-34.

Dunleavy, Patrick and Christopher Hood, “From de la Old Public Administration


to New Public Management”, Public Money and Management, vol. 14, issue 3,
1994, pp. 9-17.

135
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

Dunsire, Andrew (1973), Administration: the word and the science, London,
Martin Robertson and Co.

Entrena Cuesta, Rafael (1961), “La Contraposición entre el Régimen


Administrativo y el Rule of Law”. Estudios en homenaje a Jordana de Pozas,
Madrid, Instituto de Estudios Políticos.

Fichte, Johann Gottlieb (1800), El Estado comercial cerrado, Madrid, Editorial


Tecnós, 1991.

Finer, Herman (1927), The British civil service, London, The Fabian Society.

---------- (1941), Municipal trading, London, George Allen & ltd.

---------- (1934), Theory and practice of modern government, New York, Henry
Holt and Company, 1949. Revised edition.

Finer, S.E. (1950), A primer of public administration, London, Frederick Muller


ltd.

Fouillee, Alfred (1903), Esquisse psychologique des peuples européens, Paris,


Félix Alcan, Éditeur.

Friedrich, Carl (1937), Teoría y realidad de la organización constitucional


democrática, México, Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1946.

Frontin (1944), Les aqueducs de la ville de Roma, París, Societé d’Édition Les
Belles Lettres.

Furió Ceriol, Fadrique (1549), El concejo y consejeros del príncipe, Valencia,


Institución de Alfonso El Magnífico, 1952.

Gelinier, Octave (1966), Le secret des structures competitives, Paris, Éditions


Hommes et Techniques.

Giddens, Anthony (1999), La tercera vía, México, Editorial Taurus, 1998.

Gildas (circa 570), On the ruin of Britan (De Excidio Britanneae), New York,
Dodo Books, sin año.

Gladden, E.N. (1949), An introduction to public administration, London, Staples


Press, 1952.

---------- (1953), The essentials of public administration, London, Staples Press,


1958.

---------- (1966), Approach to public administration, London, Staples Press.

---------- (1967), Civil service of the United Kingdom: 1855-1970, London, Frank
Cass.

136
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

---------- (1972), A history of public administration, London, Frank Cass, dos


tomos.

Gneist, Rudolf (1892), History of the English parliament, London, William


Clowes & sons Limited, third edition revised.

Goodnow, Frank (1893), Comparative administrative law, New York, G.P.


Putnam’s Sons, dos tomos, 1897.

Gross, Bertram (1964), The managing of organizations: the administrative


struggle, New York, The Free Press Glencoe, dos tomos.

Grove, J.W. (1962), Government and industry in Britain, London, Longmans,


Green and Co ltd.

Gumplowicz, Luis (1877), Derecho político filosófico, Madrid, La España


Moderna, sin fecha de edición.

Gurtvitch, Georges (1944), La Déclaration des droits sociaux, New York,


Éditions de la Maison Française.

Haskins, Homer Charles (1915), The normans in European history, Boston and
New York, Houghton Mifflin Company.

Haverfield, F. (1912), The Romanization of Roman Britain, Oxford, Clarendon


Press (facsímil, D. N. Goodchild, Philadelphia, 2007).

Heady, Ferrel (1966), Public administration: a comparative perspective,


Englewood Ciff, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall.

Hill, Michael (1972), The sociology of public administration, New York, Crane,
Russak and Company, Inc.

Hintze, Otto (1929), “Esencia y Difusión del Feudalismo”. Historia de las formas
políticas, Madrid, Revista de Occidente, 1968.

---------- (1930), “Tipología de las Instituciones Estamentales de Occidente”.


Historia de las formas políticas, Madrid, Revista de Occidente, 1968.

---------- (1929), “Condiciones histórico-universales de la constitución


representativa”. Historia de las formas políticas, Madrid, Revista de Occidente,
1968.

Hood, Christopher (1976), Los alcances de la administración pública, México,


Editorial Limusa, 1979.

---------- and Michael Jackson (1991), Administrative argument, Aldershot,


Dartmouth Publishing.

137
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

---------- and Michael Jackson (1994), “Key for locks in administrative argument”,
Administration & Society, vol. 25, num. 4, pp. 467-488.

---------- (1998), The art of the State, Oxford, Clerendon Press.

Janet, Paul (1872), Historia de la ciencia política, México, Editorial Nueva


España, 1947, dos tomos.

Jellinek, Georg (1911), Teoría general del Estado, México, Fondo de Cultura
Económica, 2000.

Kroeber, A. L. (1952), The nature of culture, Chicago, The University of Chicago


Press.

Kuhn, Thomas (1962), The structure of scientific revolutions, Chicago,


University of Chicago Press, 1970.

LaPalombara, Joseph [editor] (1963), Bureaucracy and political development,


Princeton, Princeton Universuty Press.

Laski, Harold (1923), “The Growth of Administrative Discretion”, The Journal of


Public Administration, vol. I, pp. 92-100.

---------- (1925), Grammar of politics, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1929.

---------- Introduction. Taylor, Henry (1832), The statesman, Cambridge, W.


Heffer and Sons Limited, 1927.

---------- Foreword. White, L.C., A modern guide to the civil service, London,
University of London Press.

Lepawsky, Albert (1949), Administration, New York, Alfred A. Knopf.

Locke, John (1690), The second treatise of civil government, Oxford, Basil
Blackwll, 1948.

Lowell, Lawrence (1900), Colonial civil service, New York, The Macmillan
Company.

Mackenzie, W.J.M. y J.W. Grove (1957), Central administration in Britain,


London, Logmans, 1967.

Mackenzie Brown, D. (1953), La sombrilla blanca: el pensamiento político hindú


desde

Manú hasta Gandhi, Madrid, Editorial Tecnós, 1965 (1953).

Majone, Giandomenico (1978), “Los Usos del Análisis de Políticas”. Aguilar,


Luis F., La hechura de las políticas, México, Miguel Ángel Porrúa, 1992.

138
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

Marx, Carlos (1853A), “La Dominación Británica en la India”. En Carlos Marx y


Federico Engels, Obras escogidas, Moscú, Editorial Progreso, sin año, dos
tomos, tomo I pp. 352-359.

---------- (1853B), “Futuros Resultados de la Dominación Británica en la India”.


En Carlos Marx y Federico Engels, Obras escogidas, Moscú, Editorial
Progreso, sin año, dos tomos, pp. 360-367.

Marx, Carlos, El capital, México, Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1968, tres


tomos (1867, 1885 y 1894).

McLuhan, Marshall y B.R. Powers (1989), La aldea global, Barcelona, Editorial


Gedisa, 1996.

Meinecke, Friedrich (1998), Machiavelism, New Brunswick, Transaction


Publisher.

Merson, F. (1923), “Public Administration: a Science”, The Journal of Public


Administration, vol. I, pp. 220-227.

Metcalfe, Les (1993), “Conviction Politics and Dynamics Conservadurism: Mrs.


Thatcher Managerial Revolution”, International Political Science Review, vol.
14, num.4, pp. 351-352.

---------- (1995), “The European Comission as a Network Organisation”, Publius:


the Journal of Federalism, vol. 6, num. 4, 1996, pp. 43-62.

---------- (1997), “Federalismo Flexible”, Revista de Gestión y Análisis de


Políticas, núms. 7-8.

Mill, John Stuart (1859), On liberty, Glasgow, Collins/Fontana, 1975.

---------- (1861) Considerations on representative government, Indianapolis, The


Library of Liberal Arts, 1958.

Montesquieu [Charles Louis de Secondat, Baron de la Brède y de] (1841), De


l’espirit des lois, Paris, Ernest Flammarion, Èditeur, sin año, dos tomos.

Moreland, W.H. (1911), The revenue administration of the United Provinces,


McMillan and Co., New Delhi, Renaissance Publising House, 1984.

---------- (1920), India at the death Akbar: economic study, London, McMillan
and Co. Versión facsímil: New Delhi, Low Price Publications, 1995.

---------- (1921), “The Science of Public Administration”, Quarterly Review, vol.


235.

---------- (1929), “Recent Work in Indian Economic History (1905-1928)”, The


Economic History Review, vol. 2, no. 1, (Jan., 1929), pp. 130-136. Published

139
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the Economic History Society. Stable URL:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2589878.

Morris, John (2005), Londinium: London in the Roman Empire, London,


Phoenix Press, 2005.

Morse Stephen (1900), An account of the East India College at Haileybury


(1806-1857), New York, The Macmillan Company.

Muñoz Amato, Pedro (1954), Introducción al estudio de la administración


pública, México, Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1954, dos tomos.

Nagel, Ernest (1961), The structure of science, Indianapolis, Hackett Publishing


Company, 1979.

Nicholson, Max (1967), The system: the misgovernment of modern Britain, New
York, McGraw-Hill Books Company.

O’Malley, L.S.S. (1931), The Indian civil service (1601-1930), London, John
Murray, Albemarle.

Petit-Dutaillis, Ch., La monarquía feudal en Francia e Inglaterra (siglos X al


XIII), México, uteha, 1961.

Perpiña, Román (1965), Origen y ocaso de las talasocracias, Madrid, Instituto


de Estudios Políticos.

Pirie, Madsen (1985), Dismantling the State, Dallas, The National Center of
Policy Analysis, 1985.

Pirie, Madsen (1988), Privatization: theory, practice and choice, London,


Wildwood House.

---------- (1966), Aspects of political development, Boston, Little, Brown and


Company.

Quek Peck Lim, “Los Riesgos de la Privatización”, México, Contextos, año 4,


núm. 68, Secretaría de Programación y Presupuesto, 1986, pp. 24-27.

Real Academia Española, Diccionario de la Lengua Española, vigésima


segunda edición, 2001.

Reid, G.T. (1913), The origen and development of public administration in


England, London, MacDonald and Evans.

Richard, son of Nigel (1179), The course of the exchequer, London, Thomas
Nelson and sons ltd, 1950.

Ridley, F.F. (1972) “Public Administration: Cause for Discontent”, London,


Public Administration, vol. 50, spring.

140
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

---------- (1975), The study of government: political science and public


administration, London, George Allen & Unwin Ldt.

Riggs, Fred (1961), The ecology of public administration, Bombay, Asia


Publishing House.

---------- (1964) Administration in the developing countries, Boston, Houghton


Mifflin.

---------- (1970), “The Context of Development Administration”. Riggs, Fred


(editor), Frontiers of development administration, Durhman, Duke University
Press.

Robson, William (1928), Justice and administrative law, London, Stevens &
sons Limited, 1951, third edition.

---------- (1947), “The Administration of Nationalized Industries in Britain”, Public


Administration Review, vol. 7, num. 3, pp. 161-169.

---------- (1949), Book reviews [Warner, Richard, The principles of public


administration], The Political Quarterly, volume 20, issue 1, pp. 84-85.

---------- (1956), “Bureaucracy and Democracy”. Robson, William, The civil


service in Britain and France, London, The Hogart Press.

---------- (1960), Nationalized industry and public ownership, London, Georg


Allen & Unwin ltd, 1962, second edition.

---------- (1966), Local government in crisis, London, Ruskin House Museum


Street.

---------- (1970), “Ministerial Control of the Nationalized Industries”. Friedman,


W. and J.F. Garner, Government enterprise: a comparative study, London, The
British Institute of International and Comparative Law, London, Stevens & sons,
pp. 79-90.

Röpke, Wilhelm (1944), Civitas humana, Madrid, Revista de Occidente, 1949.

Rose, Richard (1964), England, Boston, Little, Brown and Company.

---------- (1984), Understanding big government, London, Sage Publications.

Ruiz Massieu, José Francisco (1980), La nueva administración pública federal,


México, Instituto Nacional de Administración Pública.

Salway, Peter (1984), Roman Britain, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Sánchez Viamonte, Carlos (1956), Los derechos del hombre en la Revolución


Francesa, México, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

141
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

Self, Peter (1965), “Bureaucracy or Management”. Chapman, Richard and A.


Dunsire, Style in administration: reading in British public administration, London,
George Allen & Unwin ltd. Published for The Royal Institute of Public
Administration, 1971.

---------- (1972), Administrative theories and politics, London, George Allen &
Unwin ltd, 1974.

---------- (1993) Government by the market?, London, The Macmillan Press.

Sheldon, Oliver (1923), The philosophy of management, New York, Pitman


Publishing Corporation, 1965.

Siegfried, André (1930), La crisis británica en el siglo XX, Madrid, Editorial


España, 1932.

---------- (1950), L’âme des peuples, Paris, Hachette.

Siffin, William, editor (1957), Toward the comparative study of public


administration, Indiana, Indiana University Press, 1957.

Sisson, C.H. (1959), The spirit of British administration, 2a. ed. London Faber
and Faber ltd, 1965.

Smith, Adam (1776), An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of the
nations, Chicago, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. 1952.

Smith Toumlin, Joshua (1851), Local self-government and centralization,


London, John Chapman, Adamat Media, 2005.

Squire, Charles (1994), Celtic myths and legends, New York, Gramercy Books.

Tacitus [Cornelio] (98), Germany. New York, The Modern Library, 1942.

Taylor, Henry (1832), The statesman, Cambridge, W. Heffer and Sons Limited,
1927.

The Liverpool Financial Reform Administration (1865), Administrative reform:


what is wanted, how are we to get it?, Liverpool, Financial Reform Tracts.
Http://www.jstor.org.

Thomas, Rosamund (1970), The British philosophy of administration,


Cambridge, Centre for Business and Public Sector Ethics, 1989.

Tocqueville, Alexis de (1835-1840), De la démocratie en Amérique, Paris,


Garnier-Flammarion, 1981, dos tomos.

Trevelyan, G. M. (1926), History of England, Colchester and London, Logman,


1973.

142
Public Administration in Great Britain Omar Guerrero-Orozco

Urwick, Lyndall (1937), “Organization as a Technical Problem”. Gulick, Luther


and Lyndall Urwick (eds.), Papers on science of administration, New York,
Augustus M. Kelly Publishers, pp. 75 y 83-84.

---------- (1942), The elements of administration, New York and London, Harper
and Row Publishers, no date.

Vickers, John y George Yarrow (1988), Un análisis económico de la


privatización, México, Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1991.

Villar Palasi, José Luis (1952), Administración y planificación, Madrid, Ediciones


de Cultura Hispánica.

Waldo, Dwight (1948), The administrative state, New York, The Ronald Press.

Walker, Harvey (1933), “An American Conception of Public Administration”,


American Political Science Review, January.

Warner, Richard (1947), The principles of public administration, London, sir


Isaac Pitman & sons, ltd.

Warren Holister, C. (1969), The impact of the norman conquest, New York,
John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Wengert, Norman (1948), review: Warner, Richard, The principles of public


administration, American Political Science Review, vol. 42, num. 5, oct., pp.
998-999.

White, Leonard (1926), Introduction to the study of public administration, New


York, The McMillan Co.

Willoughby, W.W. (1903), The political theories of the ancient world. London
and Bombay, Longmans, Green and Co., 1903.

Willoughby, W.F. (1909), “The Reorganization of Municipal Government in


Porto Rico: Political”, Political Science Quarterly, vol. 24, num. 3.

Wright, Vincent "Reshaping the State: the implications for Public


Administration", Wester European Politics, vol. 17, issue 3, 1994, pp. 102-137.

143

You might also like