Reviews
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1926.tb02278.x |
| Published date | 01 October 1926 |
| Date | 01 October 1926 |
Reviews
[It
will
be
the object of the Reviews
of
Books
in
the
JOURNAL
to cover the
whole ground
of
the literature produced
in
the preceding quarter which may have
a
bearing
upon
public administration.
By
this
means,
it
is
hoped, some assistance
will be given to the student and some direction to the general reader.
A
judgment
of
the value
of
the books will be attempted,
as
a portion
of
the ordinary duty
of
criticism, but the particular value
of
the
book
in
its relation
to
the advance
of
the science
of
public administration
will
be regarded as the paramount criterion.]
Proceedings
of
the Governmental Research Committee,
Pittsburg,
1925
IT
is commonly supposed in this country that we have little to
learn in the
art
of
public administration from America. In so
far
as
American ideas on local government in pii.rticu1a.r have appealed to
British minds, it has been productive of keen controversy rather than
general acceptance. For instance, the idea
of
a
City Manager
on
American
lines
is
in
many ways attractive
;
it
is
an idea not lightly dismissed by
the
“
man in the street,” but mistrusted by members
of
local government
bodies, not to mention the various officials who rightly point out that the
success of the system may depend more upon the individual than upon
the principle
of
the system of concentrated control in one official.
It may well be that in Great Britain we have had
so
much more
experience of local government, and we have entrusted to local Councils
so
many more duties, that as compared
with
America we find
it
difficult
to restrain ourselves from regarding ourselves as experts and Americans
as
novices.
It
may be that our field of local govern-
ment is both wider in scope and more truly democratic in character, and
it
is true that many
of our
local Councils are rich in history and ripe in
experience, but we are rather conservative in our conceptions of adminis-
trative and executive machinery, and not easily persuaded that the
freshness of mind and the disposition to express it
so
clearly discernible
in
American local government, is good medicine
for
us.
Nothing could be more refreshing to the progressive mind, however,
than a perusal
of
the volume now before
us
recording the proceedings
of
the Governmental Research Conference
at
Pittsburg
in
November
1925.
We must read the volume with
a
mind free from prejudice,
and
not be disconcerted either by reformed spelling or by colloquial language
which would shock an alderman. After all,
“
thru
”
conveys the same
idea to the mind
as
We do
not usually apply to a paper on such
a
sober subject
as
local government
the title
“
Over the goal line
with
municipal research.” These are
443
This
is
a dangerous doctrine.
through
”
or
“
throo,” but not
“
threw.”
To continue reading
Request your trial