Suchergebnisse

An initial attempt to summarize the most important events in the field of public administration in the United States for a calendar year.

The operation of the newly devised systems of centralized control in state government has naturally raised many questions of the relative duties and responsibilities of department and bureau officials on the one hand and of the supervising and controlling authorities on the other. The process of change from an established method of conducting public business to another, based on different principles and requiring new obligations on the part of officers expending money is bound to be a period of readjustment accompanied by a certain amount of friction. This will be the more certain as the new system differs more widely from the old and restricts more completely the freedom of action formerly reserved to heads of the various state services.The establishment of the state board of public affairs in Wisconsin in 1911, the enactment of the Civil Code in Illinois in 1917, the enactment of the Ohio Civil Code in 1921, and the legislation of Massachusetts culminating in the creation of the board of administration and finance, all made wide departures from the system of administration hitherto in operation. The essential characteristic introduced in each case was the imposition of an agency of review, of supervision, and in many respects of control upon officers and commissions who had hitherto conducted the work of their respective offices for the most part subject only to the necessity of securing approval of their expenditures by the auditor or controller.

Bills defining the relation of public officials and employees to the state have recently been presented to the legislatures of Great Britain, France, and the United States. Great Britain has already enacted an important statute regulating the status of the police forces of England, Wales, and Scotland. The general intent of the law is to establish an official police organization, known as the Police Federation; to forbid its alliance with any trade union or other body outside the police service; and to furnish opportunity to make its influence felt in matters relating to the government and conditions of service of the police force.

THE OCEAN SHIPPING INDUSTRY REMAINS THE ODD MAN OUT IN AN ERA OF DEREGULATION AND DECREASED PROTECTIONISM FOR THE ECONOMY IN GENERAL AND TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRIES IN PARTICULAR. IN THIS ARTICLE, WE DISCUSS CURRENT U.S. POLICIES TOWARD OCEAN SHIPPING AND ANALYZE THEIR RATIONALES AND CONSEQUENCES. A LONG-STANDING COMBINATION OF OPERATING AND CONSTRUCTION SUBSIDIES, ANTITRUST IMMUNITY, AND RESERVED CARGO HAS SHIELDED THE U.S. MERCHANT MARINE FROM MARKET FORCES. THIS PROTECTION HAS MEANT HIGHER COSTS FOR SHIPPING GOODS IN THE COASTAL TRADES AND HIGHER COSTS FOR SHIPPING GOVERNMENT-IMPELLED CARGOES. GOVERNMENT-ENFORCED CARTEL AGREEMENTS MAINTAIN RATES ABOVE MARKET LEVELS. THESE POLICIES ARE RESPONSIBLE, AT LEAST IN PART, FOR THE STEADY DECLINE OF THE U.S. FLEET. THE RATIONALE FOR THESE POLICIES IS BASED ON FAULTY ECONOMIC REASONING. EVEN THE APPARENTLY STRONGEST RATIONALE, THE NEED FOR THE U.S. MERCHANT MARINE IN THE EVENT OF WAR, DOES NOT PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR CURRENT POLICIES. THE AUTHORS CONCLUDE THAT A CHANGE IN COURSE IS IMPERATIVE. THEY RECOMMEND AN END TO ECONOMIC REGULATION, CARGO PREFERENCE, AND OPERATING AND CONSTRUCTION SUBSIDIES. THE RESULT WOULD BE A MORE EFFICIENT MERCHANT MARINE.