scarcely any longer capable of perceiving the awkwardness of the particular system we may be using.just because it is so easy for us to use any system.We do not study the art of governing:we govern.But mere unschooled genius for affairs will not save us from sad blunders in administration.Though democrats by long inheritance and repeated choice.we are still rather crude democrats.Old as democracy is,its organization on a basis of modern ideas and conditions is still an unaccomplished work.The democratic state has yet to be equipped for carrying those enormous burdens of administration which the needs of this industrial and trading age re so fast accumulating Without comparative studies in government we cannot rid ourselves of the misconception that administration stands upon an essentially different basis in a democratic state After such study we could grant democracy the sufficient honor of ultimately detemining by debate all essential questions affecting the public weal of basing all structures of policy upon the major will:but we would have found butone rue of good administration for all goverments alike more than that,if they are to be uniformly useful and efficient,they s have a strong structural likeness.A free man has the same bodily organs,the same executive parts,as the slave,however different may be his motives,his services,his energies.Monarchies and democracies,radically different as they are in other repects,have in reality much the same business to look to It is abundantly safe nowadays to insist upon this actual likeness of all governments.because these are days when abuses of power are easily exposed and arrested,in countries likeouown by a bold.detective and a sturdy popularf-dependence such as never existed before.Were slow to appreciate this,but it is easy to appreciate it.Try to imagine personal government in the United States.It is like trying to imagine a national worship of Zeus. Our imaginations are too modern for the feat. But besides being safe,it is necessary to see that for all governments alike the legitimate ends of administration are the same,in order not to be frightened at the idea of looking into foreign systems of administration for instruction and suggestion,in order to get rid of the apprehension that we might perchance blindly borrow something incompatible with our principles That man is blindly astray who denounces attempts to transplant foreign systems into this country It is impossible:they simply would not grow here.But why should we not use such parts of 26
26 scarcely any longer capable of perceiving the awkwardness of the particular system we may be using, just because it is so easy for us to use any system. We do not study the art of governing: we govern. But mere unschooled genius for affairs will not save us from sad blunders in administration. Though democrats by long inheritance and repeated choice, we are still rather crude democrats. Old as democracy is, its organization on a basis of modern ideas and conditions is still an unaccomplished work. The democratic state has yet to be equipped for carrying those enormous burdens of administration which the needs of this industrial and trading age are so fast accumulating. Without comparative studies in government we cannot rid ourselves of the misconception that administration stands upon an essentially different basis in a democratic state from that on which it stands in a non-democratic state. After such study we could grant democracy the sufficient honor of ultimately determining by debate all essential questions affecting the public weal, of basing all structures of policy upon the major will; but we would have found but one rule of good administration for all governments alike. So far as administrative functions are concerned, all governments have a strong structural likeness; more than that, if they are to be uniformly useful and efficient, they must have a strong structural likeness. A free man has the same bodily organs, the same executive parts, as the slave, however different may be his motives, his services, his energies. Monarchies and democracies, radically different as they are in other respects, have in reality much the same business to look to. It is abundantly safe nowadays to insist upon this actual likeness of all governments, because these are days when abuses of power are easily exposed and arrested, in countries like our own, by a bold, alert, inquisitive, detective public thought and a sturdy popular self-dependence such as never existed before. We are slow to appreciate this; but it is easy to appreciate it. Try to imagine personal government in the United States. It is like trying to imagine a national worship of Zeus. Our imaginations are too modern for the feat. But, besides being safe, it is necessary to see that for all governments alike the legitimate ends of administration are the same, in order not to be frightened at the idea of looking into foreign systems of administration for instruction and suggestion; in order to get rid of the apprehension that we might perchance blindly borrow something incompatible with our principles. That man is blindly astray who denounces attempts to transplant foreign systems into this country. It is impossible: they simply would not grow here. But why should we not use such parts of
foreign contrivances as we want,if they be in any way serviceable?We are in no danger of using them in a foreign way.We borrowed rice.but we do not eat it with chopsticks.We borrowed our whole political language from England,but we leave the words"king"and"lords"out of it.What did we ever originate.except the action of the federal goverment upon individuals and some of the functions of the federal supreme court? We can borrow the science of administration with safety and profit if only we read all fundamental differences of tenets We have only to filter it throughou constitutions,only to put it overaslow fire of riticism and distil away its foreign gases I know that there is a sneaking fear in some conscientiously patriotic minds that studies of European systems might signalize some foreign methods as better than some American methods and the fear iseasily to be understood.But it would scarcely be avowed in just any company. It is the more necessary to insist upon thus putting away all prejudices against looking anywhere in the world but at home for suggestions in this study,because nowhere else in the whole field of politics,it would mcan we make use of the historical,comparative method more safely than in this province of administration Pehaps the more novel the forms we study the better.We shall the sooner learn the peculiarities of our own methods.We can never learn either our own weaknessesorour own virtues by comparing ourselves with ourselves.We are too used to the appearance and procedure of our own system to see its true significance.Perhaps even the English system is too much like our own to be used to the most profit in illustration.It is best on the whole to get entirely away from our own atmosphere and to be most careful in examining such systems asthos of France and Germany.own institutions through ourselves as foreigners might see us were they to look at us without preconceptions Of ourselves so long as we know only ourselves,we know nothing. Let it be noted that it is the distinction,already drawn,between administration and politics which makes the comparative method safe in the field of aministration.When we study the administrative systems of France and Germany,knowing that we are not in search of polirical principles,we need not care a peppercorn for the constitutional or political reasons which FrenchmenrGermans give for ther practices when explaining them to us IfIsa murderous fellow sharpening a knife cleverly.I can borrow his way of sharpening the knife without borrowing his probable intention to commit murder with it;and so,if I see a monarchist dyed in 27
27 foreign contrivances as we want, if they be in any way serviceable? We are in no danger of using them in a foreign way. We borrowed rice, but we do not eat it with chopsticks. We borrowed our whole political language from England, but we leave the words "king" and "lords" out of it. What did we ever originate, except the action of the federal government upon individuals and some of the functions of the federal supreme court? We can borrow the science of administration with safety and profit if only we read all fundamental differences of condition into its essential tenets. We have only to filter it through our constitutions, only to put it over a slow fire of criticism and distil away its foreign gases. I know that there is a sneaking fear in some conscientiously patriotic minds that studies of European systems might signalize some foreign methods as better than some American methods; and the fear is easily to be understood. But it would scarcely be avowed in just any company. It is the more necessary to insist upon thus putting away all prejudices against looking anywhere in the world but at home for suggestions in this study, because nowhere else in the whole field of politics, it would seem, can we make use of the historical, comparative method more safely than in this province of administration. Perhaps the more novel the forms we study the better. We shall the sooner learn the peculiarities of our own methods. We can never learn either our own weaknesses or our own virtues by comparing ourselves with ourselves. We are too used to the appearance and procedure of our own system to see its true significance. Perhaps even the English system is too much like our own to be used to the most profit in illustration. It is best on the whole to get entirely away from our own atmosphere and to be most careful in examining such systems as those of France and Germany. Seeing our own institutions through such media, we see ourselves as foreigners might see us were they to look at us without preconceptions. Of ourselves, so long as we know only ourselves, we know nothing. Let it be noted that it is the distinction, already drawn, between administration and politics which makes the comparative method so safe in the field of administration. When we study the administrative systems of France and Germany, knowing that we are not in search of political principles, we need not care a peppercorn for the constitutional or political reasons which Frenchmen or Germans give for their practices when explaining them to us. If I see a murderous fellow sharpening a knife cleverly, I can borrow his way of sharpening the knife without borrowing his probable intention to commit murder with it; and so, if I see a monarchist dyed in
the wool managing a public bureau well,I can learn his business methods without changing one of my republican spots.He may erve his king:I will continue tosrve the peoplebuIshould like to serve my sovereign as well as he rves his By keeping this distinction in view-that is by studying administration as a means of puttingour own politics into convenient practice.as a means of making what is democratically politic towards all administratively possible towards each.-we are on perfectly safe ground and can lear withouter what foreign systems have to teach us.We thus devise an adjusting weight for our comparative method of study.We can thus scrutinize the anatomy of foreign governments without fear of getting any of their diseases into ourveins,issecalien systemswithout apprehension ofldn Our own politics must be the touchstone for all theories.The principles on which to basea science of administration for America must be principles which have democratic policy very much at heart.And,to suit American habit,all general theories must,as theories,keep modestly in the background,not in open argument only,but even in our own minds-lest opinions satisfactory only to the standards of the library should be dogmatically used,as if they must be quite to the standards of practical politics as well.Doctrinaire devices must be postponed to tested practices.Arrangements not only sanctioned by conclusive experience elsewhere but also congenial to American habit must be preferred without hesitation to theoretical perfection.In a word,steady,practical statesmanship must come first,closet doctrine second.The cosmopolitan what-to-do must always be commanded by the American how-to-do-it. Our duty is,to supply the best possible life to a federal organization,to systems within systems to make town,city.,and federal governments live with a like strength and an equally assured healthfuess keeping eachunquestionably its own master and yet makingal interdependent and co-operative combining independence with mutual helpfulness.The task is great and important enough toattract the best minds This interlacing of local self-government with federal self-government is quite a modern conception.It is not like the arrangements of imperial federation in Germany.There local government is not yet.fully,local self-government.The bureaucrat is everywhere busy.His efficiency springs out of eprit de cors,out of care to make ingratiating obeisance to the authority of a superior,or at best.out of thes of asnsitive conscience.He serves not the public,but an irresponsible minister.The question for us is,how shall our series of goverrments 28
28 the wool managing a public bureau well, I can learn his business methods without changing one of my republican spots. He may serve his king; I will continue to serve the people; but I should like to serve my sovereign as well as he serves his. By keeping this distinction in view,-that is, by studying administration as a means of putting our own politics into convenient practice, as a means of making what is democratically politic towards all administratively possible towards each,-we are on perfectly safe ground, and can learn without error what foreign systems have to teach us. We thus devise an adjusting weight for our comparative method of study. We can thus scrutinize the anatomy of foreign governments without fear of getting any of their diseases into our veins; dissect alien systems without apprehension of blood-poisoning. Our own politics must be the touchstone for all theories. The principles on which to base a science of administration for America must be principles which have democratic policy very much at heart. And, to suit American habit, all general theories must, as theories, keep modestly in the background, not in open argument only, but even in our own minds,-lest opinions satisfactory only to the standards of the library should be dogmatically used, as if they must be quite as satisfactory to the standards of practical politics as well. Doctrinaire devices must be postponed to tested practices. Arrangements not only sanctioned by conclusive experience elsewhere but also congenial to American habit must be preferred without hesitation to theoretical perfection. In a word, steady, practical statesmanship must come first, closet doctrine second. The cosmopolitan what-to-do must always be commanded by the American how-to-do-it. Our duty is, to supply the best possible life to a federal organization, to systems within systems; to make town, city, county, state, and federal governments live with a like strength and an equally assured healthfulness, keeping each unquestionably its own master and yet making all interdependent and co-operative combining independence with mutual helpfulness. The task is great and important enough to attract the best minds. This interlacing of local self-government with federal self-government is quite a modern conception. It is not like the arrangements of imperial federation in Germany. There local government is not yet, fully, local self-government. The bureaucrat is everywhere busy. His efficiency springs out of esprit de corps, out of care to make ingratiating obeisance to the authority of a superior, or at best, out of the soil of a sensitive conscience. He serves, not the public, but an irresponsible minister. The question for us is, how shall our series of governments
within governments be so administered that it shall always be to the interest of the public officer to serve.not his superior alone but the community also,with the best efforts of his talents and the soberest service of his conscience?How shall such service be made to his commonest interest by contributing abundantly to his sustenance.to his dearest interest by furthering his ambition and to his highest interest by advancing his honor and establishing his character?And how shall this be done alike for the local part and for the national whole? If we solve this problem we shall again pilot the world There is a tendency-is there no?-a tendeney as yet dim,bu already steadily impulsive and clearly destined to prevail,towards first the confederation of parts of empires like the British,and finally of great states themselves. Instead of iioof power.there is to be idennth oerated divisions of prerogative This is a tendeney towards the American type of governments joind with governments for the pursuit of common purposes,in honorary equality and honorable subordination Like principles of civil liberty are everywhere fostering like methods of government,and if comparative studies of the ways and means of goverment should enable us to offer suggestions which will practicably combine openness and vigor in the administration of such goverments with ready docility toal serious,well-sustained public criticism,they will have approved themselves worthy to be ranked among the highest and most fruitful of the great departments of political study.That they will isue(议题：问题)insuch suggestions Iconfidently hope 9
29 within governments be so administered that it shall always be to the interest of the public officer to serve, not his superior alone but the community also, with the best efforts of his talents and the soberest service of his conscience? How shall such service be made to his commonest interest by contributing abundantly to his sustenance, to his dearest interest by furthering his ambition, and to his highest interest by advancing his honor and establishing his character? And how shall this be done alike for the local part and for the national whole? If we solve this problem we shall again pilot the world. There is a tendency-is there not?- a tendency as yet dim, but already steadily impulsive and clearly destined to prevail, towards, first the confederation of parts of empires like the British, and finally of great states themselves. Instead of centralization of power, there is to be wide union with tolerated divisions of prerogative. This is a tendency towards the American type of governments joined with governments for the pursuit of common purposes, in honorary equality and honorable subordination. Like principles of civil liberty are everywhere fostering like methods of government; and if comparative studies of the ways and means of government should enable us to offer suggestions which will practicably combine openness and vigor in the administration of such governments with ready docility to all serious, well-sustained public criticism, they will have approved themselves worthy to be ranked among the highest and most fruitful of the great departments of political study. That they will issue （议题；问题）in such suggestions I confidently hope
3.Politics and Administration Frank J.Goodnow If we analyze the organization of any concrete government,we shall find that there are three kinds of authorities which are engaged in the execution of the state will.These are in the first place,the authorities which apply the law in concrete cases where controversies arise owing to the failure of private individualsor public authorities to observe the rights of others.Such authorities are known as judicial authorities.They are,in the place.the authorities which have the general supervision of the execution of the state will and which are commonly referred to as executive authorities.They are,finally,the authorities which are attending to the scientific, technical,and,so tospeak commereial activities of the which are inal As government becomes more complex these three authorities,all of which are engaged in the execution of the will of the state,tend to become more and more differentiated.The first to authoritiesfrst in point oftmeitisasthe rest Indeed,it issarinsome instances as to lead many students,as has been pointed out,to mark off the activity of the judicial authorities as a separate powerr functionof. Enough has been said,it is believed,to show that there are two distinct functions of government,and that their differentiation results in a differentiation,thought less complete,of the organs of government provided by the formal governmental system.These two functions of government may for purposes of convenience be designated prospectively as Politics and Adminisration has to do with the.Administration has todo with the execution of these policies. It is of couue that the meaning which is here given to the word olitiesisno the meaning which has been attributed to that word by most political writers.At the same time it is submitted that the sense in which politics is here used is the sense in which it is used by most people inordinary affairs Thus the Century Dictionary definespolitics In the narrower and more usual sense.the act or vocation of guiding or influencing the policy of agoverment through theorgio of a party among itscitntherefore. not only the ethics of government,but more especially,and often to the exclusion of ethical 30
30 3. Politics and Administration Frank J. Goodnow If we analyze the organization of any concrete government, we shall find that there are three kinds of authorities which are engaged in the execution of the state will. These are , in the first place, the authorities which apply the law in concrete cases where controversies arise owing to the failure of private individuals or public authorities to observe the rights of others. Such authorities are known as judicial authorities. They are, in the second place, the authorities which have the general supervision of the execution of the state will, and which are commonly referred to as executive authorities. They are, finally, the authorities which are attending to the scientific, technical, and, so to speak, commercial activities of the government, and which are in all countries, where such activities have attained prominence, known as administrative authorities. As government becomes more complex these three authorities, all of which are engaged in the execution of the will of the state, tend to become more and more differentiated. The first to become so differentiated are the judicial authorities. Not only is this differentiation of the judicial authorities first in point of time, it is also the clearest. Indeed, it is so clear in some instances as to lead many students, as has been pointed out, to mark off the activity of the judicial authorities as a separate power or function of government. Enough has been said, it is believed, to show that there are two distinct functions of government, and that their differentiation results in a differentiation, thought less complete, of the organs of government provided by the formal governmental system. These two functions of government may for purposes of convenience be designated prospectively as Politics and Administration. Politics has to do with policies or expressions of the state will. Administration has to do with the execution of these policies. It is of course true that the meaning which is here given to the word “politics” is not the meaning which has been attributed to that word by most political writers. At the same time it is submitted that the sense in which politics is here used is the sense in which it is used by most people in ordinary affairs. Thus the Century Dictionary defines “politics”: In the narrower and more usual sense, the act or vocation of guiding or influencing the policy of a government through the organization of a party among its citizens-including, therefore, not only the ethics of government, but more especially, and often to the exclusion of ethical