IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v29y1935i02p257-269_02.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The New Amateur in Public Administration

Author

Listed:
  • Stafford, Paul T.

Abstract

The history of public administration in the United States is a record of compromise between conflicting principles. The oldest and most bitterly-contested of the many clashes between antagonistic points of view is that between the principle of the spoils system on the one hand and the merit principle on the other. Stripped of eulogistic verbiage, these principles present two diametrically opposed objectives—the former that administration shall be the happy hunting ground of the spoilsman, the latter that administration shall be a non-political service where “efficiency is king.†For a century at least, with the possible exception of the early days of the national administration, the advocates of the spoils system held a dominant position in the struggle, compromising only where a tradition of service protected a public office from partisan control. By 1870, however, the movement for civil service reform had gained strength and the following three or four decades witnessed a determined drive for the adoption of the merit system. The reaction to the spoils system principle, once begun, has continued ever since. Today, administration, by virtue of its sweeping powers over individual liberty and property, has come into closer contact with the citizen than ever before, and this fact is serving to accelerate the movement in favor of the merit principle in the public service.

Suggested Citation

  • Stafford, Paul T., 1935. "The New Amateur in Public Administration," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 29(2), pages 257-269, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:29:y:1935:i:02:p:257-269_02
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055400027647/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:29:y:1935:i:02:p:257-269_02. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.