Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:27:25.524Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The “Great Engineer” as Administrator: Herbert Hoover and Modern Bureaucracy*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2009

Peri E. Arnold
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A half century ago Herbert Hoover entered the presidency and the “Great Engineer” of the 1920's became, after 1930, the butt of Depression era jokes. The economic collapse which began in 1929 not only broke Hoover's presidency, it obscured his accomplishments as a key public figure in American life during this century.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Politics , Volume 42 , Issue 3 , July 1980 , pp. 329 - 348
Copyright
Copyright © University of Notre Dame 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For example, see Hawley, Ellis, “Herbert Hoover, the Commerce Secretariat and the Vision of an ‘Associative State,’ 1921–1928,” Journal of American History, 62 (06 1974), 116–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Burner, David, Herbert Hoover: A Public Life (New York, 1979)Google Scholar; and Arnold, Peri, “Herbert Hoover and the Continuity of American Public Policy,” Public Policy, 20 (Fall 1972), 525–44.Google Scholar

2 Wilson, Woodrow, “The Study of Administration,” Political Science Quarterly, 56 (12 1941), 481–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar (reprinted from original publication in 1887).

3 Ibid., p. 484.

4 For a discussion of the weakness of the traditional or “orthodox” conception of administration and the profoundly political character of modern administration, see Seidman, Harold, Politics, Position, and Power (New York, 1970)Google Scholar, chaps. 1–3.

5 Notice, for example, Eisenhower's Schedule C and his support of the second Hoover Commission's recommended senior civil service, Nixon's 1971 recommendation of a federal executive service and Carter's successful civil service reform, particularly his executive service.

6 Aberbach, Joel D. and Rockman, Bert A., “Clashing Beliefs Within the Executive Branch,” American Political Science Review, 70 (06 1956), 456–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 See Weber, 's essay on bureaucracy in Gerth, Hans and Mills, C. Wright, eds., From Max Weber (New York, 1947)Google Scholar, chap. 7.

8 On discretion and its implications in modern bureaucracy, see Davis, Kenneth C., Discretionary Justice (Baton Rouge, 1969), pp. 3–25.Google Scholar

9 New York Times, 16 06 1923.Google Scholar

10 Short, Floyd M., The Development of National Administrative Organization in the United States (Urbana, Illinois, 1923), p. 397.Google Scholar

11 See Rasmussen, Wayne D. and Baker, Gladys, The Department of Agriculture (New York, 1972); pp. 10–11.Google Scholar

12 See Edelman, Murray, The Symbolic Uses of Politics (Urbana, Illinois, 1964).Google Scholar

13 32 Stat. L. 825, sec. 3.

14 Ibid.

15 Hoover, Herbert, Memoirs (New York, 1952), vol. 2, The Cabinet and the Presidency, p. 42.Google Scholar

16 The role of functional representation in the creation of Labor is hinted at in several key appointments. W. B. Wilson, the first secretary, was formerly an activist and organizer for the coal-miners' union; Samuel Gompers, the chief clerk, was the Samuel Gompers' son, and Terrence Powderly, head of the Information Office, was formerly head of the Knights of Labor.

17 See Redfield, William C., With Congress and Cabinet (Garden City, N.J., 1924).Google Scholar

18 See Cuff, Robert, The War Industries Board (Baltimore, 1973).Google Scholar

19 Woody, Carroll H., The Growth of the Federal Government (New York, 1934), p. 166.Google Scholar

20 New York Times, 25 02 1921.Google Scholar

21 On the political implications of Hoover's vision, see McConnell, Grant, Private Power and American Democracy (New York, 1965)Google Scholar, chaps. 3 and 8.

22 New York Times, 25 02 1921.Google Scholar

23 Hoover, Herbert, Memoirs, II:42.Google Scholar

24 New York Times, 10 03 1921.Google Scholar

25 Hoover, to Mason, Stephen, 28 03 1921Google Scholar, Recommendations for Advisory Board, Official File, Commerce Papers, Herbert Hoover Presidential Library, West Branch, Iowa.

26 Women's Wear, 26 04 1921Google Scholar; and Emmet, Richard to Goree, Robert, 9 05 1921Google Scholar, Commerce: 2nd Conference Recommendations, Official File, Commerce Papers, Herbert Hoover Presidential Library.

27 Hoover, to Cheney, Roy, 15 07 1923Google Scholar, “Herbert Hoover Personal: Government Ownership and Regulation, Personal File, Commerce Papers,” Herbert Hoover Presidential Library.

28 In 1924 Hoover stated: “We often lay too much stress upon competitive features, too little upon the fact that it [business] is in essence a great cooperative effort.” Transcript, speech before 1924 meeting of Chamber of Commerce of U.S., Official File, Commerce Papers, Herbert Hoover Presidential Library. In a discussion of the tension between group and individual interests and its effect on action, see Olson, Mancur, The Logic of Collective Action (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1965).Google Scholar

29 Hoover, to Daugherty, Harry, 3 02 1922Google Scholar, Trade Associations: 01–02 1922Google Scholar, Official File, Commerce Papers, Herbert Hoover Presidential Library.

30 New York Times, 29 04 1921.Google Scholar

31 Ibid.

32 This fear proved to be prescient in the Supreme Court's opinion in American Column and Lumber v. U.S., 277 U.S. 377.

33 Feiker, F. M. to trade paper editors, 3 06 1921Google Scholar, F#81094, RG 40, National Archives; J. Walter Drake, speech transcript, Conference of Trade Association Executives, 12 April 1922, Press Release: March–April, 1922, Official File, Commerce Papers, Herbert Hoover Presidential Library; Drake, to Chapin, Ray, 31 08 1923Google Scholar, F/2, RG 40, National Archives, Washington, D.C.

34 New York Times, 13 08 1921.Google Scholar

35 U.S. Department of Commerce, Annual Report, 1922 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1922), p. 76.Google Scholar

36 U.S. Congress, House, Hearings: Department of Commerce Appropriation Bill, 68th Cong., 2nd sess., 1925, pp. 2–3.Google Scholar

37 On Hoover's involvement in the coal industry, see Hawley, Ellis, “Secretary Hoover and the Bituminous Coal Problem,” Business History Review, 16, no. 3 (1968), 247–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

38 See Engler, Robert, The Politics of Oil (Chicago, 1961), chap. 8.Google Scholar

39 U.S. Department of Commerce, Annual Report, 1922, p. 138.Google Scholar

40 U. S. Department of Commerce, Trade Association Activities (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1927), p. 247.Google Scholar

41 Hoover, to Brown, Walter, 4 10 1921Google Scholar, F/4, RG 40, National Archives.

42 Hoover, to Harding, Warren G., 17 01 1924Google Scholar, General Government Reorganization, Official File, Commerce Papers, Herbert Hoover Presidential Library.

43 Hoover, Herbert, Memoirs (New York, 1952), vol. 1, Years of Adventure, 155, 241–42.Google Scholar

44 Ibid., II: 42.

45 See Lloyd, Craig, Aggressive Introvert (Columbus, 1972), chap. 4.Google Scholar

46 Ibid.

47 Herter, Christian to Resnick, Louis, 4 05 1921Google Scholar, National Conference of Business Paper Editors: 1921–1923, Official File, Commerce Papers, Herbert Hoover Presidential Library.

48 Marrinan, Memo to Klein, , 11 03 1926Google Scholar, Colt Co., Official File, Commerce Papers, Herbert Hoover Presidential Library.

49 After Roosevelt entered office, the department was cut back because of its status and reputation as Hoover's creation. Memo, , Raiffa, A. L., 15 01 1933Google Scholar, F#80553, RG 40, National Archives.

50 See Weber, , and Mouzelis, Nicos P., Organisation and Bureaucracy (Chicago, 1968), chaps. 1–2.Google Scholar

51 Exemplifying this, observe how completely the first Hoover Commission supported the notion of a managerially strong presidency. See, Arnold, Peri E., “The First Hoover Commission and the Managerial Presidency.” Journal of Politics, 38, no. 1 (02 1976), 46–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar