Communication
[659] Chapter IX, on “The Problem of Interest Groups,” in Emmett S. Redford’s notable study, Administration of National Economic Control (New York: Macmillan, 1952), is one of the most complete and valuable reviews of literature on the role of groups in federal regulatory programs.
[660] Herbert A. Simon, Administrative Behavior (New York: Macmillan, 1954), p. 154.
[661] 56 Stat. 248, April 29, 1942, Sec. 4 (d).
[662] 52 Stat. 1175, June 25, 1938, Sec. 316.
[663] The American College Dictionary.
[664] 48 Stat. 211, June 16, 1933, Sec. 6 (a).
[665] 64 Stat. 798, September 8, 1950, Sec. 404.
[666] 60 Stat. 798, May 13, 1946, Sec. 3 (a).
[667] 60 Stat. 128, April 30, 1946, Sec. 10 (a), 102 (a).
[668] 48 Stat. 943, June 12, 1934, Sec. 4.
[669] 48 Stat. 811, May 28, 1934.
[670] 55 Stat. 31, March 11, 1941, Sec. 3 (a).
[671] 64 Stat. 773, September 7, 1950, Sec. 1202 (a).
[672] 64 Stat. 825, September 9, 1950, Sec. 1203.
[673] 55 Stat. 606, July 29, 1941, Sec. 2.
[674] 61 Stat. 678, July 30, 1947, Sec. 3.
[675] 54 Stat. 1137, October 14, 1940, Sec. 326 (d).
[676] 55 Stat. 606, July 29, 1941, Sec. 2.
[677] 65 Stat. 69, June 15, 1951, Sec. 5.
[678] 165 Proclamation No. 2931, 65 Stat. 314, June 19, 1951.
[679] 65 Stat. 75, June 19, 1951, Sec. 4.
[680] 49 Stat. 340, June 14, 1935, Sec. 2.
[681] Proclamation No. 2272, 52 Stat. 1534, January, 1938.
[682] Note 671, supra.
[683] 64 Stat. 798, September 8, 1950, Sec. 708 (b), (c).
[684] 64 Stat. 476, August 26, 1950.
[685] 67 Stat. 408, August 7, 1953, Sec. 3 (c), and (d); 9 (a) (4).
[686] 56 Stat. 248, April 29, 1942, Sec. 3.
[687] 56 Stat. 176, March 27, 1942, Sec. 501.
[688] 58 Stat. 723, July 3, 1944.
[689] 66 Stat. 6, February 11, 1952.
[690] Proclamation No. 2979, 66 Stat. 35, June, 1952.
[691] 63 Stat. 7, February 26, 1949, Secs. (a), (c).
[692] James C. Charlesworth, Government Administration (New York: Harper, 1951), pp. 252-53, attributes to the term “integration” the meaning “administrative wholeness, or oneness, or entireness, or completeness of the elements under control.” We would lend the term the same positive tone but use it to indicate tendency or emphasis.
[693] The words “co-operation” and “co-ordination” are taken from the texts of statutes, and it is assumed that they have distinctive meanings in the law. “Joint decision-making” and “mutual assistance” are obvious designations for the administrative relationships described in the statutes concerned.
It would be digressive to incorporate any lengthy discussion of the concepts of “co-operation” and “co-ordination” in the text of this book. It should, however, be pointed out that they are fuzzy concepts, indeed, as employed in standard public administration texts, and as defined in standard dictionaries. The indices of Leonard D. White, Introduction to the Study of Public Administration (3rd ed.; New York: Macmillan, 1948), John M. Pfiffner and R. Vance Presthus, Public Administration (3rd ed.; New York: Ronald Press, 1953), and John D. Millet, Management in the Public Service (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1954), do not list “co-operation.” Herbert A. Simon, Donald W. Smithburg, and Victor A. Thompson, Public Administration (New York: Knopf, 1950), equate administration with co-operation: “When two men co-operate to roll a stone neither could have moved alone, the rudiments of administration have appeared” (p. 3). “Any activity involving the conscious co-operation of two or more persons can be called organized activity.... Thus, by formal organization we mean a planned system of co-operation effort in which each participant has a recognized role to play and duties or tasks to perform” (p. 5). “... the dignity of the individual can be respected only in an administrative situation in which all participants will gain, in one way or another, from the accomplishment of the organization goal. In such a situation, administration can be ‘co-operative’ in the broadest sense” (p. 23). Charlesworth, op. cit., imputes to co-operation the attributes of “a fast-moving automatic machine, every part (of which) must be positively controlled, so that at any particular phase of the machine’s operation, every part is in a precisely predetermined place, and no other place” (p. 220).
Co-ordination, to James D. Mooney and Alan C. Reiley, Onward Industry (New York: Harper, 1931), “expresses the principles of organization in toto.” All other principles are merely those through which co-ordination acts. And co-ordination means to “act together” (p. 19). White, having criticized Mooney and Reiley for taking the concept of co-ordination to express “the whole of administration,” suggests that “to co-ordinate is to bring about the consistent and harmonious action of persons with each other toward a common end” (p. 210). This, some would regard as a shorthand definition of administration.
Charlesworth, op. cit., and Simon, Administrative Behavior, attempt to distinguish between co-operation and co-ordination. Charlesworth’s effort is perhaps the most elaborate, and Simon’s seems, in the context of this study, to have the most operational utility. Charlesworth distinguishes between “vertical and horizontal” co-ordination, and stresses that “co-ordination is promoted both structurally and procedurally” (pp. 245-46). Apparently attributing to the term “integration” the same meaning previously assigned to “co-operation” (“Administrative integration means administrative wholeness, or oneness, or entireness, or completeness of the elements of control.”), he distinguishes between integration and co-ordination: “Integration is different from co-ordination in that co-ordination relates to causing disjunct elements to work harmoniously together whereas integration relates to the completeness and wholeness of the controls by which the harmony is brought about....” (pp. 252-53).
Simon suggests that “Perhaps it would clarify discussion of administrative theory to use the term ‘co-ordination’ for activity in which the participants share a common goal, and ‘co-ordination’ for the process of informing each as to the planned behaviors of the others. Hence, co-operation will usually be ineffective—will not reach its goal, whatever the intentions of the participants—in the absence of co-ordination” (p. 72).
These quotations have been placed in juxtaposition to illustrate existing inconsistencies and ambiguities in the use of the terms co-operation and co-ordination in most standard works on public administration in the United States. It would be distortive of the purpose of this study to undertake to refine and relate these concepts. We do suggest, however, that administrative theorists undertaking this task could profitably seek insight in statutory materials and administrative histories—i.e., empirical data.
[694] 53 Stat. 811, June 7, 1939, Sec. 2, 3.
[695] 53 Stat. 1407, August 11, 1939.
[696] 63 Stat. 208, June 20, 1949, Sec. 8.
[697] 66 Stat. 163, January 27, 1952, Sec. 201 (b); 202.
[698] Proclamation No. 2980, 66 Stat. 136, June 30, 1952.
[699] 61 Stat. 495, July 26, 1947, Sec. 2.
[700] 56 Stat. 351, June 11, 1942.
[701] 58 Stat. 190, April 5, 1944.
[702] 59 Stat. 231, June 5, 1945.
[703] 64 Stat. 798, September 8, 1950, Sec. 401.
[704] 56 Stat. 23, January 30, 1942, Sec. 1 (a).
[705] Id.
[706] 64 Stat. 5, February 14, 1950, Sec. 3 (d), (e).
[707] 65 Stat. 69, June 15, 1951, Sec. 5.
[708] 48 Stat. 58, May 18, 1933, Sec. 5 (j), (k).
[709] 50 Stat. 885, September 1, 1937, Sec. 3 (a).
[710] 55 Stat. 591, July 14, 1941, Sec. 4 (s).
[711] 62 Stat. 274, May 26, 1948.
[712] 64 Stat. 438, August 11, 1950, Sec. 3 (a), (f).
[713] 64 Stat. 149, May 10, 1950, Sec. 3 (a).
[714] 66 Stat. 163, June 27, 1952.
[715] 49 Stat. 1081, August 31, 1935, Sec. 2 (a).
[716] 58 Stat. 649, July 1, 1944, Sec. 4, 5.
[717] 60 Stat. 755, August 1, 1946.
[718] 62 Stat. 266, May 25, 1948.