The final report of the President’s Committee on Administrative Management has been widely cited as a landmark study designed to improve executive branch management. This observation, however, does not tell the complete story of its constitutional complexity. In addition to the report that President Roosevelt submitted to Congress in 1937, he commissioned five additional studies that, individually and collectively, reveal the untold story of the Brownlow Project. They emphasize not only the improvement of public management but also the improvement of democracy within the American administrative state. Alexander Hamilton’s argument regarding unity of the executive—and his understanding of the imperative nature of this philosophical principle on the American constitutional republic—connects these documents. Together, the papers underscore that the legitimacy of American public administration can be found only within its constitutional heritage.
Adams, G. B. (1992). Enthralled with modernity: The historical context of knowledge and theory development in public administration. Public Administration Review, 52, 363-373.
2.
Aranson, P., Gellhorn, E., & Robinson, G. O. (1982). A theory of legislative delegation. Cornell Law Review, 68, 1-67.
3.
Brownlow, L., Merriam, C., & Gulick, L. (1937). Administrative management in the government of the United States. Washington, DC: President’s Committee on Administrative Management.
4.
Buck, A. E., & Mansfield, H. C. (1937). Fiscal management in the national government. Washington, DC: President’s Committee on Administrative Management.
5.
Caldwell, L. K. (1955). The relevance of administrative history. Revue Internationale des Sciences Administratives, 21, 453-466.
6.
Congressional Quarterly Press. (2006). The politics of the administrative process, 3rd edition. Retrieved from http://www.cqpress.com/product/Politics-of-the-Administrative-3.html
7.
Cooke, J. E. (Ed.). (1989). The Federalist. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.
8.
Cushman, R. E. (1937). The independent regulatory commissions. Washington, DC: President’s Committee on Administrative Management.
9.
Denhardt, R. (1995). Public administration: An action orientation (2nd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
10.
Fesler, J. W. (1987). The Brownlow Committee fifty years later. Public Administration Review, 47, 291-296.
11.
Gellhorn, E. (1987). Returning to first principles. American University Law Review, 60, 495-505.
12.
Goodsell, C. T. (2004). The case for bureaucracy: A public administration polemic. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
13.
Hart, J., & Witte, E. E. (1937). The exercise of rule-making power and the preparation of proposed legislative measures by administrative departments. Washington, DC: President’s Committee on Administrative Management.
14.
In memoriam: James Fesler. (2005, May 6). Yale Bulletin and Calendar. Retrieved May 6, 2006, from http://www.yale.edu/opa/v33.n28/story30.html
15.
Karl, B. (1963). Executive reorganization and reform in the New Deal: The genesis of administrative management, 1900-1939. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
16.
Light, P. (1995). Thickening government: Federal hierarchy and the diffusion of accountability. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
17.
Lowi, T. (1993). Two roads to serfdom: Liberalism, conservatism, and administrative power. In S. L. Elkins & K. E. Soltan (Eds.), A new constitutionalism: Designing political institutions for a good society (pp. 149-173). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
18.
Lynn, L. E. (2001). The myth of the bureaucratic paradigm: What traditional public administration really stood for. Public Administration Review, 61, 144-160.
19.
MacMahon, A., Fesler, J. W., & Emmerich, H. (1937). Problems of administrative management. Washington, DC: President’s Committee on Administrative Management.
20.
Rabkin, J. (1995, Spring). Cornell University College of Arts and Sciences newsletter. Retrieved Spring 2005 from http://www.arts.cornell.edu/newsletr/spring95/rabkin.htm
21.
Reeves, F. W., & David, P. T. (1937). Personnel administration in the federal service. Washington, DC: President’s Committee on Administrative Management.
22.
Rohr, J. A. (1986). To run a constitution: The legitimacy of the administrative state. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
23.
Rosenbloom, D., & Kravchuk, R. S. (2002). Public administration: Understanding management, politics, and law in the public sector (5th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
24.
Sargentich, T. (1987). The delegation debate and compelling ideals of the administrative process. American University Law Review, 36, 419-442.
25.
Stillman, R. (1988). Public administration: Concepts and cases (4th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
26.
Stillman, R. (1991). Preface to public administration: A search for themes and directions. New York: St. Martin’s.
27.
Thompson, K. W. (1995). Diplomacy, administration, and policy: The ideas and careers of Nolting, Mosher, and David. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
28.
Waldo, D. (1948). The administrative state. New York: Ronald Press.
29.
White, L. D. (1948). The Federalists: A study in administrative history. New York: Macmillan.
30.
White, L. D. (1951). The Jeffersonians: A study in administrative history, 1801-1829. New York: Macmillan.
31.
White, L. D. (1954). The Jacksonians: A study in administrative history, 1829-1861. New York: Macmillan.
32.
White, L. D. (1958). The Republican era: A study in administrative history, 1869-1901. New York: Macmillan.
33.
Willoughby, W. F. (1927). Principles of public administration. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
