Dwight Waldo’s work on the Administrative State largely neglects sovereignty. In this essay, I address this neglect by connecting Schmitt’s ideas of “the decision” and “the exception” to the work of Herbert Simon on the sciences of the artificial. I introduce a political understanding of the Administrative State that I call the impersonal sovereign. Through the Administrative State, Schmitt’s apparent aporia of the modern state is reconciled by the emergence of the impersonal sovereign, where the very act of decision is increasingly assigned to nobody, by design.
ArendtH. (2018). Thinking without a banister: Essays in understanding, 1953-1975 (KohnJ., Ed.). Schocken Books.
2.
CatlawT. J. (2005). Constitution as executive order: The administrative state and the political ontology of “We the People.”Administration & Society, 37(4), 445–482.
3.
CatlawT. J. (2007). Fabricating the people: Politics and administration in the biopolitical state. University of Alabama Press.
4.
FredericksonH. G. (1990). Public administration and social equity. Public Administration Review, 50(2), 228–237.
5.
FryB. R.RaadscheldersJ. C. N. (2014). Mastering public administration: From Max Weber to Dwight Waldo (3rd ed.). CQ Press.
6.
HartD. K. (1971). Social equity, justice, and the equitable administrator. Public Administration Review, 34(1), 3–11.
7.
HeidelbergR. (2017). Public administration and the logic of resolution. Critical Policy Studies, 11(3), 272–290.
KrabbeH. (1927). The modern idea of the state (SabineG. H.ShepardW. J., Trans.). D. Appleton.
10.
McSwiteO. C. (1997). Legitimacy in public administration, a discourse analysis. SAGE.
11.
MouffeC. (2005). The democratic paradox. Verso.
12.
OstromV.OstromE. (1971). Public choice: A different approach to the study of public administration. Public Administration Review, 31(2), 203–216.
13.
RaadscheldersJ. C. N. (2018). The state of theory in the study of public Administration in the United States: Balancing evidence-based, usable knowledge, and conceptual understanding. Administrative Theory & Praxis. https://doi.org/10.1080/10841806.2018.1526517
14.
RobertsA. (2020). Should we defend the administrative state?Public Administration Review, 80(3), 391–401.
15.
RohrJ. (1986). To run a constitution: The legitimacy of the administrative state. University of Kansas Press.
16.
SchmittC. (2005). Political theology (SchwabG., Trans.). University of Chicago Press.
17.
SimonH. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. MIT Press.
SimonH.DuckerP. F.WaldoD. (1952). “Development of Theory of Democratic Administration”: Replies and comments. American Political Science Review, 46, 494–503.
20.
SpicerM. (2019a). Towards the Meridian: Albert Camus, Democracy, and Public Administration. Public Integrity, 21(4), 378–393.
21.
SpicerM. (2019b). What do we mean by democracy? Reflections on an essentially contested concept and its relationship to politics and public administration. Administration & Society, 51(5), 724–748.
22.
ThalerR. H.SunsteinC. R. (2009). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Penguin Books.
23.
TocquevilleA., d. (2004). Democracy in America (GoldhammerA., Trans.). The Library of America.
24.
WaldoD. (1952). Development of theory of democratic administration. American Political Science Review, 46, 81–103.
25.
WaldoD. (2007). The administrative state: A study of the political theory of American public administration. Transaction.
26.
WeberM. (2013). Economy and Society: An outline of interpretive sociology (RothG.WittichC., Ed.). University of California Press.
27.
WilsonW. (1887). The study of administration. Political Science Quarterly, 2(2), 197–222.
28.
WolinS. (2004). Politics and vision (Expanded ed.). Princeton University Press.
