The growing ‘constitutional school’ of public administration has roots in the Federalist Papers, constitutional law, and the writings of several contemporary leaders and contributors in the field. It is comprised of a loose grouping of scholars who subscribe to the proposition that constitutions and the constitutional characteristics of a regime are key determinants of public administrative culture, institutions, organizations, personnel practices, budgetary and decision-making processes, commitment to the rule of law and human rights, and myriad aspects of overall behavior. Participants in constitutional school research believe that the ‘big questions’ in public administration cannot be answered without reference to constitutional designs, institutions, and regime values. This edited volume brings together the most prominent names in constitutional school scholarship in an aim to make it more visible, accessible, and central to the field of public administration's pedagogy, scholarship, and intellectual development. It will be essential reading for scholars and students of public administration with an interest in constitutional / administrative law and political theory around the globe.

Questions of ethics in public administration are increasingly in the news, where commentators seem too often detached from the sources of those ethics and their application to current political conflicts. American Public Service: Constitutional and Ethical Foundations examines public administration ethics as contextualized by constitutional, legal, and political values within the United States. Through case studies, hypothetical examples, and an easy-to-read discussion format, the authors explore what these values mean for specific duties of government managers and for the resolution of many contemporary issues confronting public sector officials. Key Features: • Describes the philosophical underpinnings of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights • Identifies the values that anchor and define what government and public administrators should do. • Indicates where these values fit into a framework for moral decision-making in the public sector, and how they apply to discussions of current controversies in public administration. • Written by authors with rich experience as both lawyers and academics in public administration programs.

Previous edition, 2nd, published in 1997 ; first edition, 1983, entitled : Public administration and law : bench v. bureau in the United States.

In this synthesis of political philosophy, public administration, and American history, Rohr seeks to legitimize the administrative state in terms of constitutional principle. He tries to show that the fourth (or administrative) branch of government is compatible with the plans of the framers--both Federalist and anti-Federalist-of the U.S. Constitution and of the Bill of Rights. He argues that the combination of powers in administrative agencies does not violate the standard of separation of powers set forth in The Federalist (especially by James Madison); the higher reaches of the career civil service fulfill the framers' constitutional design by performing a balancing function originally assigned to the Senate; and the career civil service en masse heals the defect of inadequate representation in the Federal Constitution. ISBN 0-7006-0291-7 : $29.95.

“Hamburger argues persuasively that America has overlaid its constitutional system with a form of governance that is both alien and dangerous.” —Law and Politics Book Review While the federal government traditionally could constrain liberty only through acts of Congress and the courts, the executive branch has increasingly come to control Americans through its own administrative rules and adjudication, thus raising disturbing questions about the effect of this sort of state power on American government and society. With Is Administrative Law Unlawful?, Philip Hamburger answers this question in the affirmative, offering a revisionist account of administrative law. Rather than accepting it as a novel power necessitated by modern society, he locates its origins in the medieval and early modern English tradition of royal prerogative. Then he traces resistance to administrative law from the Middle Ages to the present. Medieval parliaments periodically tried to confine the Crown to governing through regular law, but the most effective response was the seventeenth-century development of English constitutional law, which concluded that the government could rule only through the law of the land and the courts, not through administrative edicts. Although the US Constitution pursued this conclusion even more vigorously, administrative power reemerged in the Progressive and New Deal Eras. Since then, Hamburger argues, administrative law has returned American government and society to precisely the sort of consolidated or absolute power that the US Constitution—and constitutions in general—were designed to prevent. With a clear yet many-layered argument that draws on history, law, and legal thought, Is Administrative Law Unlawful? reveals administrative law to be not a benign, natural outgrowth of contemporary government but a pernicious—and profoundly unlawful—return to dangerous pre-constitutional absolutism.

The politics-administration dichotomy is much mentioned and often criticized in the Public Administration literature. The Politics-Administration Dichotomy: Toward a Constitutional Perspective, Second Edition offers a book-length treatment of this classical notion. While public administration academics typically reject it as an outdated and even dangerous idea, it re-emerges implicitly in their analyses. This book tells the story of how this has happened and suggests a way to get out of the quandary. It analyzes the dichotomy position in terms of content, purpose, and relevance. What’s in the Second Edition Extensive study of the politics-administration dichotomy as a classic idea in Public Administration A much-overlooked constitutionalist line of argument in defense of this widely discredited notion Exploration and further development of the intellectual legacy of Dwight Waldo Coverage of the dichotomy’s conceptual origins in 18th and 19th century Continental-European thought An assessment of main criticisms against and alternatives for the dichotomy presented in the literature Contributions to the newly emerging Constitutional School in the study of public administration An argument against the institutional separation of Political Science and Public Administration in academia Completely revised and updated, the book examines the idea that politics and public administration should be separated in our theories and practices of government. A combination of history of ideas and theoretical analysis, it reconstructs the dichotomy’s conceptual origins and classical understandings and gives an assessment of the main criticisms raised against it and the chief alternatives suggested for it. Arguing that one-sided interpretations have led to the dichotomy’s widespread but wrongful dismissal, the study shows how it can be recovered as a meaningful idea when understood as a constitutional principle. This study helps readers make sense of highly confused debates and challenge the issues with an original and provocative stance.

This groundbreaking book is the first to look at administration and administrative law in the earliest days of the American republic. Contrary to conventional understandings, Mashaw demonstrates that from the very beginning Congress delegated vast discretion to administrative officials and armed them with extrajudicial adjudicatory, rulemaking, and enforcement authority. The legislative and administrative practices of the U.S. Constitution’s first century created an administrative constitution hardly hinted at in its formal text. Beyond describing a history that has previously gone largely unexamined, this book, in the author’s words, will "demonstrate that there has been no precipitous fall from a historical position of separation-of-powers grace to a position of compromise; there is not a new administrative constitution whose legitimacy should be understood as not only contestable but deeply problematic."