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.