Fritz Sager

Christian Rosser
University of Bern

Reflecting Weber, Wilson, and Hegel: Theories of Modern Bureaucracy

on Seminal
Administrative
Theorists

Fritz Sager is a professor of political Convergence between Woodrow Wilson’s and Max Weber’s two scientists independently created something that
science in the Centre of Competence for
thought, as well as their differences with regard to the was accidentally similar. However, the assumption of a
Public Management at the University
of Bern, Switzerland. He specializes in politics–administration dichotomy, can be ascribed to the “historical accident” only seems plausible if no better
administrative studies and theory, policy Hegelian tradition of public administrative theory. On the explanation can be found. Therefore, it is the aim
research and evaluation, organizational
one hand, Wilson was strongly influenced by Georg W. F. of this paper to find a better account. An alternative
analysis, and Swiss politics. His research has
been published in Governance, Public Hegel. On the other hand, there is an empirical connection explanation is that the convergence occurred because
Administration, Political Studies, between Hegel and Weber. Both shared a consciousness Wilson and Weber drew conclusions from each other’s
Policy and Politics, West European
of the German bureaucratic tradition based on Hegel’s academic work. But we know that this presumption
Politics, the Journal of Urban Affairs,
Public Money and Management, and Philosophy of Right. These insights have important cannot be supported, because neither Weber nor
Evaluation. methodological and theoretical implications for the Wilson mentioned or cited the other researcher in his
E-mail: [email protected]
contemporary comparative study of public administration. administrative writings.1
Christian Rosser has studied history,

T
political science, and English literature at
he similarities between contemporaries Moreover, we can rule out the possibility that the
the University of Bern, Switzerland, where Woodrow Wilson (1856–1924) and Max convergence between the American and the Ger-
he is now working toward his doctorate in Weber (1864–1920) have been widely stressed man had its origin in both scholars’ reflections of
political science. His interest lies in political
theory, and, in particular, the history of
in public administration research (Cuff 1978, 240; identical contemporary institutional environments.
administrative ideas of the nineteenth and Diggins 1958, 578–80; Fry and Nigro 1996, 39–40; Heinz-Dieter Meyer states that “formal organizations
twentieth centuries. His doctoral research is Jackson 1986, 149). These acknowledgments most in the United States emerged under institutional and
on the transfer of administrative knowledge
between France, Germany, and the United
often relate to Wilson’s article “The Study of Adminis- cultural conditions sufficiently different from those
States. tration” (1887), and Weber’s ideal type of bureaucracy, Weber witnessed” (1995, 32; cf. Luton 2003, 175;
E-mail: [email protected] which he described in Economy and Society, published Overeem 2005, 316–17; Stillman 1997, 332–37).
in 1921. Robert D. Cuff states that “the discovery of Whereas Weber followed the German administrative
Weber’s academic sociology among American scientists tradition to conclude with his ideal type of bureauc-
after World War II reinforced the classical principles of racy,2 Wilson was rather pessimistic about the state
public administration advanced by such early American of affairs on his continent. As shall be demonstrated,
writers as Woodrow Wilson. . . . Wilson and Weber, in Wilson wanted to change his contemporary adminis-
other words, converged on simi- trative system and, in order to
lar principles of effective govern- find empirical evidence and per-
ment and the theory derived Despite the fact that the suasive arguments for his claim,
from their work has been the convergence between Weber the American scholar consulted
burden of public administration and Wilson is generally German sources (Miewald
ever since” (1978, 240). Despite
acknowledged, thus far there has 1984, 1994). More precisely,
the fact that the convergence we argue that the convergence
between Weber and Wilson is been no thorough discussion of between Weber and Wilson can
generally acknowledged, thus the underlying reasons for this be comprehended by consider-
far there has been no thorough phenomenon . . . this paper [is] ing the latter’s debt to the
discussion of the underlying rea- a contribution to fill that gap. influential line of thought of
sons for this phenomenon. We the German philosopher
consider this paper a contribu- Georg W. F. Hegel (1770–1831).
tion to fill that gap.
It has been stated that both Weber and Wilson shared
Why did Weber and Wilson conclude with similar the view that public administration and politics
principles of bureaucracy? One explanation is that the should be strictly separated. While this is certainly
1136 Public Administration Review • November | December 2009
true for Weber’s writings on bureaucracy, it is not that obvious steady process called “modernization.” According to Ali A. Maz-
in Wilson’s case. Therefore, a close examination of the politics– rui, “the idea of analyzing and classifying nations on the basis of
administration dichotomy is important. The first section of this the stage of modernization . . . has long-standing historical con-
paper will discuss both the uncontested convergence between the nections with a tradition that goes back to social Darwinism and
two scholars’ writings and the politics–administration dichotomy beyond” (1968, 69). However, Weber used Darwinist terminology
that has been the object of much controversy in the literature. In only in his early work. “After 1895, he moved away from biologi-
the second section, we intend to show that the intellectual con- cal language, and his later works cannot be characterized as Social
nection between Wilson and Hegel is quite clear. As to the link Darwinism” (Weikart 1993, 478–79). Later, he mainly applied tech-
between Hegel and Weber, we know that the latter explicitly chose a nical metaphors, picturing the state and its rational bureaucracy as a
non-Hegelian epistemological and methodological approach (Weber mechanism, machine, or apparatus (cf. Anter 1995, 210–17; Treiber
1988, 517; 1994, 173). In this respect, we agree with Sven Eliaeson, 2007, 130; Weber 1972, 321–23; Weber 1980, 570, 682). Hence,
who observes that “it would be difficult to make a Hegelian out of Weberian growth or development is more likely of a technical than
Weber” (2006, 285; cf. Beetham 1985, 63–67; Whimster 2006, an organic nature.
319). Nevertheless, the two Germans’ concepts of bureaucracy
are strikingly similar. We argue that this is because of an obvious Weber disagreed with Hegel’s teleological notion of history as he
empirical connection between Hegel and Weber. Indeed, both stated that “it is a contravention against the research method, if we
anchored their writings in the typically Prussian administrative tra- look at a ‘cultural stage’ as something else than a mere term, if we
dition. In the third section, we will consider Hegel’s conception of deal with it as a real creature in the sense of organisms . . . or as a
the powerful state, and specifically his view of bureaucracy, in detail. Hegelian idea” (1988, 517; authors’ translation).5 Accordingly, We-
Finally, the relevance of our findings for today’s public administra- ber applied ideal typical historical stages as means of representation
tion theory concerns remains to be discussed in the conclusion. in order to analyze Western history in a neutral manner (Treiber
2007, 136). Ideal typically speaking, the modern bureaucracy is
With regard to method, we shall work hermeneutically with the most rational and thus inevitable technical instrument for the
Weber’s, Wilson’s, and Hegel’s texts. In order to avoid inaccuracies, organization of government. Especially in his later political writings,
the original language sources will be used along with translations he pictured the surpassing rationality of the modern bureaucracy—
and secondary literature to support the paraphrased passages.3 The as we shall clarify later—as a specious phenomenon.
qualitative-descriptive and comparative approach of this essay is
aligned with the history of ideas as a dominant line of research in Weber’s ideal type of bureaucracy satisfies a checklist of distinctive
the field of administrative history (Raadschelders 2003, 165). criteria (Weber 1980, 124–30). The rational public administration
is based on written rules, an impersonal order, and a clear division
Similarities and Differences between Weber and Wilson of labor. Furthermore, bureaucrats are appointed to administrative
Reconsidered offices because of their skills (meritocracy) and not because of their
In the following, we first describe the similarities between Weber ancestry. The public servant’s education is important, and bureau-
and Wilson before turning to a more in-depth discussion of the crats are supposed to be highly specialized professionals. To use
politics–administration dichotomy as a dissimilarity. We find that the words of Fritz Ringer, public servants are “individual officials
the main difference between the two scholars’ conceptions of the (not collegial bodies), recruited into a fixed hierarchy of offices on
state is that Weber conceived of the state as a mechanistic phe- the basis of qualifications that may be ascertained by examinations
nomenon, whereas Wilson saw it as an organism. This conceptual and certified by diplomas. They are salaried and often pensioned,
difference has important implications for their notions of the and they regard their work as a full-time career” (2004, 183). In
political–administrative relationship. sum, Weberian bureaucracy consists of a hierarchically structured,
professional, rule-bound, impersonal, meritocratic, appointed, and
The Convergence between Max Weber and Woodrow Wilson disciplined body of public servants with a specific set of competen-
Weber believed that “the emergence of the modern state from cies (Weber 1980, 825–27; see also Ringer 2004, 182–84).
feudalism is a gradual but irreversible process by which sociopoliti-
cal relations have become both institutionalized and impersonal- Having considered Weber’s writings, we now turn to Wilson’s. He
ized. . . . During the era of absolute monarchy, feudalism faded was an early exponent of the Progressive reform movement, which
away and was replaced by the modern administrative apparatus” was introduced shortly before the turn of the nineteenth century
(Shaw 1992, 382). According to Weber (1990, 209), the continuous (Hofstadter 1974, 131–73; Raadschelders 2000, 499–510; Walker
rationalization and modernization of the Occident is an irreversible 1989, 509–25). According to Larry Walker, “Progressivism was
Entzauberung der Welt.4 Whereas the development of the Occidental, a rebellion against limited government and the individualism of
capitalistic system reflects the modernization of the economy, the nineteenth-century liberalism. It accepted collectivism, the welfare
formalization of bureaucracy displays the modernization of the state. of the community as a whole, as a positive value” (1989, 512).
These two processes are causally interlinked (Weber 1952, 108). The exponents of the movement, who were mainly urban white
Bureaucracy is inevitable “because it is the most efficient, the most Protestants,6 opposed the increasing number of monopolies in the
calculable, and thus ‘formally’ the most rational means of exercising economy and the spoils system in the United States (McLean 1996,
authority in every form of organization” (Ringer 2004, 220). 407; Putnam 2000, 368–401).

Thus, Weber’s conception of bureaucracy has to be understood Most fundamentally, Wilson wanted to know what the state
by paying attention to his view of the history of the occident as a should do and how it could do it most efficiently. He intended to
Weber, Wilson, and Hegel: Theories of Modern Bureaucracy 1137
“conquer” the corrupt and confusing adminis- of Administration,” in which it is pictured
trative circumstances in the United States with as a slow and steady evolution that proceeds
a public administration based on scientific Most fundamentally, Wilson through three phases. In the first phase,
research. In this context, Wilson stated, “The wanted to know what the the absolute European rulers would install
poisonous atmosphere . . . , the crooked state state should do and how it centrally organized, effective administrations.
of administration, the confusion, sinecurism, could do it most efficiently. In the second phase, constitutions would be
and corruption ever and again discovered in framed in order to replace the absolute ruler
He intended to “conquer”
the bureaux at Washington forbid us to believe with democratic control. In the third phase,
that any clear conceptions of what constitutes the corrupt and confusing the sovereign people would change the ad-
good administration are as yet very widely administrative circumstances ministration according to “this new constitu-
current in the United States” (1887, 201). in the United States with a tion which has brought them into power”
In order to criticize the American situation, public administration based on (Wilson 1887, 204). Apparently, Wilson felt
he often referred to European examples. In scientific research. that no absolutist “top-down” centralization
The State and in “The Study of Administra- of the executive authority could have taken
tion,” one finds many comparisons between place in the United States. As a consequence,
Western political systems, especially between those of the United a confusing and corrupt, highly fragmented administrative system
States, Germany, and Great Britain (Wilson 1887, 1892). Wilson resulted.
explicitly argued, “So far as administrative functions are concerned,
all governments have a strong structural likeness; more than this, if As in Weber’s writings, the perception of Western history as a “linear
they are to be uniformly useful and efficient, they must have a strong modernization” can also be discovered in Wilson’s work. The latter,
structural likeness. A free man has the same bodily organs . . . as the however, placed considerably more emphasis on the evolutionary
slave. . . . Monarchies and democracies, radically different as they process than Weber. On the subject of “progress,” Wilson asked,
are in other respects, have in reality much the same business to look “What . . . is the nature of government? . . . The answer is hidden
to” (1887, 218). in the nature of society itself. Society is in no sense artificial; it is as
truly natural and organic as the individual man himself. . . . Society,
It may be a matter of contention how deliberately Wilson ad- therefore, is . . . an evolution of experience, an interlaced growth of
dressed his interest to German sources in order to find arguments tenacious relationships, a compact, living, organic whole, structural,
and empirical evidence for his appeal to change his contemporary not mechanical” (1892, 597). Apparently, Wilson’s organic concep-
administrative system. Here, we comply with a theoretical argument tion of development did not change significantly during his career.
from trans-cultural historical studies that holds that people who are In accordance with his earlier statement, he wrote in 1913 that
interested in changing their own society acquire knowledge about “[l]iving political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and
another society (Lingelbach 2002a, 355; Middel 2000, 21). Hence, practice. Society is a living organism and must obey the laws of life,
it is the desire for social reform that determines the import of a not of mechanics, it must develop” (cited in Diggins 1985, 579).
specific intellectual concept. It goes without saying that the transfer
of ideas is usually a selective process. In fact, transferred concepts are Fundamentally, Wilson wanted the traditionally limited power
most often adapted to the importer’s intentions (Lingelbach 2002a, of the executive in the United States to be increased. In an effort
355–56). Empirically, we find evidence in favor of Wilson’s deliber- to make the executive less vulnerable, he intended to formalize
ate introduction of German ideas as well as his intention to adapt administrative law: “Public administration is detailed and systematic
them according to U.S. circumstances. For example, he stated that execution of public law. Every particular application of general law
there “is a science of administration, but it is not of our making. . . . is an act of administration” (Wilson 1887, 212). Wilson argued in
It has been developed by German and French Professors and . . . favor of a hierarchical organization of the bureaucracy: “There is no
must be Americanized, not in language only, but in thought, in danger in power, if only it be not irresponsible. . . . if it be centered
principle, in aim as well, before it can be of any use to us in the so- in heads of the service and in heads of branches of the service, it
lution of our own problems of administration in town, city, county, is easily watched and brought to book” (213–14). In addition, he
State, and Nation. . . . It must drink less beer and inhale more asked for a professionalized, educated body of public servants by
American air. But have it we must, even if it be necessary to import claiming that a “technically schooled civil service will presently have
it and give it new ideas” (Link 1968, 52). In “The Study of Admin- become indispensable” (216). These professionally qualified public
istration,” Wilson (1887, 201–202) made comparable statements. servants would learn to act in favor of the common will: “A body
of thoroughly trained officials serving during good behavior we
In his comparative historical research, Wilson applied a methodol- must have in any case: that is a plain business necessity” (216). In a
ogy quite similar to Weber’s, even though he did not conceive of nutshell, Wilson intended to install a scientific, professional, meri-
historical stages as ideal typical constructions but rather as adequate tocratic, clear-cut, rule-based, and therefore trustworthy bureauc-
descriptions of an evolutional development. In The State, one can racy. He considered these measures indispensable for increasing the
find examples of the American’s notion of progress. For example, executive’s power and replacing the corrupt spoils system.
Wilson wrote that “the great stages of development have remained
throughout clear and almost free from considerable irregularities. In sum, Weber and Wilson converged on similar principles of
Tested by history’s long measurement, the lines of advance are seen effective public administration. Both pictured a formalized,
to be singularly straight” (1892, 576). Furthermore, the develop- professionalized, hierarchically organized, and meritocratic public
ment of public administration is described explicitly in “The Study administration. Furthermore, their works display at least a similar
1138 Public Administration Review • November | December 2009
notion of the historical process that led to the to prove themselves in the legislative and the
emergence of public administration as the electoral process and fulfill their duties with
most effective form of government. However, . . . Weber and Wilson an ethic of responsibility, the administrators
Wilson placed more emphasis on organic converged on similar had to perform their administrative tasks
growth. This emphasis is the source of the principles of effective public neutrally and follow their political masters
difference between the two authors’ writings. administration. Both pictured to the point of self-denial. Explicitly, We-
According to John P. Diggins, Wilson “did not a formalized, professionalized, ber stated that “the passionate struggle for
seem to fear, as did Weber, that government power—‘ira et studium’—is the politician’s
based upon the principles of organic growth
hierarchically organized, element, whereas the bureaucrat should strive
would lead to higher forms of development and meritocratic public to execute legal orders dutifully, without an-
resulting in the atrophy of bureaucratization administration. . . . However, ger and passion—‘sine ira et studio’” (1980,
and specialization” (1985, 579). The distinc- Wilson placed more emphasis 833; authors’ translation; cf. Weber 1992,
tion between an organic and a mechanist on organic growth. This 190).7 Hence, to put it in Patrick Overeem’s
conception of the state is highly important emphasis is the source of the words, the German scholar “argued that it
because it leads to a deeper understanding was essential that administration stay out of
of the politics–administration dichotomy
difference between the two politics” (2005, 316).8
in Wilson’s work that has been the object of authors’ writings.
much controversy in the literature. It has been In the United States, technical maxims of bu-
stated that both theoreticians envisioned a reaucracy very similar to Weber’s were thought
strict separation between the political and the administrative sphere. to be a requirement of modern American society until the second
While this is certainly true for Weber, it is not obvious in Wilson’s half of the twentieth century (Meier and Krause 2003, 2–3). Later,
case. In order to further illuminate this distinction, a closer exami- the predominant conception of public administration faced a crisis
nation of the dichotomy question is necessary. (Ostrom 1973). Political pluralists and public choice scholars called
the classical politics–administration dichotomy into question. It was
The Differences between Weber and Wilson: Sine ira et studio doubted whether a distinctive esprit de corps would guide admin-
versus ira et studium istrators to act altruistically. Rather, it was believed that as rational
Brian R. Fry and Lloyd G. Nigro claim that “[t]he definition of the human beings, public servants would maximize their personal inter-
proper role of the administrator in a democratic society has long est and complete their dominance in the technocratic system (Downs
been a matter of contention. It has been a central concern in the lit- 1967, 2; Niskanen 1973; Ostrom and Ostrom 1971, 205–6). In this
erature of US public administration from the beginning, and remains context, Weber and Wilson were lumped together with the inten-
so to this day. Typically, the public administration literature addresses tion of criticizing the classical doctrines of administration as clearly
this issue in the context of the policy-administration dichotomy” un-American. It was stated that “[i]nsofar as Wilson subscribed to
(1996, 37). The discussion over whether public servants should be such doctrines, he stands with Weber in the anti-democratic tradition
actively involved in the political process, whether they should advo- of administrative thought” (Cuff 1978, 240). However, it is less clear
cate particular policies, and what standards their actions should be how far Wilson actually subscribed to the classical doctrine concern-
based on has been a source of controversy in administrative history ing the strict separation of politics and administration.
research. According to Larry S. Luton, “The separation of politics
and administration found a long-lasting anchorage in the doctrine Despite the fact that Wilson’s administrative work was only rarely
about the separation of powers, which has found its most popular cited until World War II (Van Riper 1984, 208), his early paper
expression in Montesquieu’s De l’esprit des lois (1748)” (2003, 179). “The Study of Administration” (1887) has often been described
In the following section, Weber’s firm position in relation to the as having had a huge impact on the development of the field of
politics–administration dichotomy will be illustrated, followed by a administrative science in general and on the politics–administration
description of Wilson’s more controversial position. dichotomy in particular. According to Paul P. Van Riper, a signifi-
cant part of the administrative literature inaccurately contends that
Weber (1980, 572) recognized that the power of the modern Wilson’s “dichotomy was essentially influential in the development
bureaucracy was in danger of becoming overwhelming. His posi- of those distinctions between politics and administration which
tion regarding this power was ambivalent. One the one hand, he today are often viewed as unfortunate. In essence, we blame it all
saw the modern bureaucracy as the only rational form of organiza- on Wilson” (1984, 204; cf. Martin 1988, 631; Raadschelders 2002,
tion, which was “not only inevitable, but ultimately desirable as 580; Rosenbloom 2008, 57; Walker 1989, 510–11). Hence, it
well” (Ringer 2004, 221). On the other hand, especially in his later might be stated that Wilson’s standpoint regarding a firm politics–
works, he expressed his doubts about the influence of modern pub- administration dichotomy has become somewhat of a legend. In
lic administration (Ringer 2004, 220–24; Treiber 2007, 121–47). the following, we will show that Wilson’s position on the politics–
According to Michael W. Jackson, “Weber feared that bureaucracy administration dichotomy was not as firm as Weber’s. Instead, the
would enslave us all” (1986, 149). Therefore, in order to make the American remained ambivalent about that subject.
state work efficiently and rationally and to control the public serv-
ant’s influence, a strict separation of the political and the adminis- There are a number of convincing arguments in favor of a firm
trative spheres seemed indispensable. In Politics as a Vocation (1919) Wilsonian dichotomy. For example, Wilson wrote very positively
as well as in Economy and Society, Weber distinguished between the about the German bureaucratic system, in which a “sovereign guid-
political leaders and the public servants: Whereas the politicians had ing will in administration” (1892, 589) is politically formed and
Weber, Wilson, and Hegel: Theories of Modern Bureaucracy 1139
the administration executes this will without “passion and anger.” Administration,’ it is hardly to be supposed that he would regard the
He might have wanted to apply the German example to the United bureaucracy with the same anxiety as Weber. Creation, not control
States when he claimed, “Bureaucracy can exist only where the was the central issue; private, not public power, the chief threat to
whole service of the state is removed from the common political liberty” (1978, 241). If anything, the American scholar intended to
life of the people, its chiefs as well as its rank and file. Its motives, take (partisan) “politics out of administration” and not vice versa
its objects, its policy, its standards, must be bureaucratic” (1887, as it was Weber’s objective (Overeem 2005, 317; cf. Rosenbloom
216–17). Furthermore, advocates of a clear Wilsonian distinction 2008, 57–60).
between the political and administrative spheres might refer to the
following quotation: “The field of administration is a field of busi- As a consequence, a distinct position on either side fails to do justice
ness. It is removed from the hurry and strife of politics. . . . Admin- to the historical circumstances. While Wilson may have introduced
istrative questions are not political questions. Although politics sets some classical American public administration doctrines, it should
the tasks for administration, it should not be suffered to manipu- be remembered that authors such as Leonard D. White, Luther
late its offices” (Wilson 1887, 209–10). These statements seem to Gulick, and Lyndall Urwick promoted the principle of the Webe-
indicate that there is a firm politics–administration dichotomy in rian distinction between politics and administration in the United
Wilson’s conception of bureaucracy. States in the 1920s and 1930s (Rosenbloom 2008, 57–60; Van
Riper 1984, 203). It was under their influence that administrative
However, Wilson also made statements regarding the proper role of doctrines comparable to Weber’s were comprehensively developed,
politicians and public servants that diverge from Weber’s firm posi- even if they used a method different to the German’s (Meier and
tion. For example, he recommended that “the administrator should Krause 2003, 2–3).
have and does have a will of his own in the choice of means for ac-
complishing his work. He is not and ought not to be a mere passive With regard to comparing Weber and Wilson, we conclude that
instrument” (1887, 212). Furthermore, he stated in a lecture about there are many striking similarities between their conceptions of
the “Functions of Government” held in 1888 at Johns Hopkins public administration. However, there are also important differences
University that “it is absurd to apply the principles of economics between their views, especially with respect to a clear politics–ad-
merely to the tasks of politics. Business-like the administration of ministration dichotomy. Wilson, on the one hand, highlighted
govt. [government] may and should be—but it is not business. It is the organic development of public administration and thus the
organic social life” (Link 1968, 690). Once more, Wilson’s emphasis “harmonious” relationship between the political and the adminis-
on organic growth becomes apparent. Even though the organs of trative sphere, where—if anything—(partisan) politics should stay
the state were supposed to function separately, they had to serve the out of administration. Weber, on the other hand, who mainly used
same purpose collectively. In 1892, he wrote that, in theory, there mechanical language, envisioned a strict politics–administration
may be “a division of organs and there is of course a real distinction dichotomy in order to keep the highly efficient and effective but
between Legislation and Administration . . . But in practice, there potentially overwhelming bureaucratic apparatus out of politics.
has been no sharp differentiation of organs to correspond to the
full with these differences of function. The object of actual develop- Hegel as the Missing Link
ments, [is] not a system of mechanical checks and balances, but Influenced by Hegel, many Germans after 1850 saw the state and its
simply organic differentiation . . . : no part overworked, but each power as a condition of national and individual freedom (Schieder
skilled and instructed by specialization; each part coördinated with 1984, 10). Robert D. Miewald states that “through such writers as
and assisted by all others; each part an organ, not to serve a separate Wilson, a massive dose of the German school found its way into the
interest, but to serve the whole” (Link 1969b, 383; cf. Wilson 1892, study of administration in the United States” (1984, 18). This paper
591). In accordance with his holistic notion of the state, Wilson ap- argues that the similarities between Wilson’s and Weber’s conception
preciated the political role of the public administration. In his work, of public administration and the differences regarding the politics–
“[t]he political significance of administrative tasks follows from the administration dichotomy can be traced to Wilson’s debt to Hegel’s
organic model” (Miewald 1984, 24). In a desirable state, the distinc- influential line of thought.
tive organs needed to be combined.
The striking similarities between Weber’s and Hegel’s writings on
In summary, despite the fact that some statements suggest a clear public administration have been widely stressed in the literature
Wilsonian politics–administration dichotomy, it would be imprecise (Gale and Hummel 2003, 409–18; Jackson 1986, 139–57; Knapp
to claim that the American scholar had a firm position. According 1986, 599–606; Shaw 1992, 381–89; Spicer 2004a, 97–102; Welty
to Walker, “Wilson never sought to erect a strong wall between poli- 1976). Even though Hegel is not cited directly in Weber’s vast work,
tics and administration. . . . In later years, he stressed in his lectures we know that many elements of the Hegelian philosophy of history
the policy making (hence, political) role of the administrator, not a and of law were brought to Weber through Karl Marx (Knapp
clear, sharp separation of politics and administration” (1989, 510– 1986, 599–604). Interestingly, the latter attributed an “empirical
11). Most importantly, he aimed at a change of his contemporary description of bureaucracy” to Hegel (Marx 1961, 247; authors’
circumstances. He wanted to install a body of responsible, ethically translation). Peter Knapp notes that “many figures who informed
correct public servants who were educated to serve the common Weber’s sociology were powerfully influenced by Hegel even as they
will. In contrast to Weber, Wilson did not place an emphasis on contested Hegelian positions” (1986, 601). As stated earlier, Weber
strictly excluding administrators from political, passionate business. himself challenged Hegel’s epistemological and methodological ap-
As Cuff states, it should not be forgotten that “[g]iven the American proach. Because of this, we believe all the more that the reason for
historical context of the 1880’s when Wilson wrote ‘The Study of the two Germans’ similar concepts of bureaucracy is quite simple.
1140 Public Administration Review • November | December 2009
In agreement with Michael W. Spicer, we suggest that “a large part books while writing The State as well as during his lectures on
of the similarities in the ideas of Hegel and Weber about bureauc- administration and public law (Link 1969b, 454; 1970a, 126–27;
racy and the state may be traced . . . to their shared consciousness 1970b, 15, 35–44; Wilson 1892, 16, 128, 175, 333, 636). Fur-
of Prussian history and experience” (2004a, 101; cf. 2001, 43–45). thermore, he advised his students to consult Bluntschli’s Staatsrecht
Indeed, many passages in Hegel’s Philosophy of Right seem to have and his Theory of the State as “collateral reading in public law” (Link
their origin in the Allgemeines Landrecht für die Preussischen Staaten 1970b, 99). Wilson must have come across elements of Hegel’s
of 1794 (Welty 1976, 3), a significant legal document that Weber Philosophy of Right during his reading of the Swiss scholar. Actually,
(1980, 494) appreciated, too.9 Bluntschli (1875, 79) appreciated Hegel for his historical reflections
on the development as well as the accentuation of the ethical life
With regard to Wilson, we are generally aware of a significant trans- (Sittlichkeit) of the state.
fer of academic ideas from Germany to the United States in connec-
tion with the nascent social sciences in the nineteenth century (see, Finally, Lorenz von Stein’s writings were well known to Wilson. In
e.g., Jarausch 1988; Lingelbach 2002b, 2003; Spicer 2001, 48–49). fact, it was Stein who brought Hegel’s notion of bureaucracy to the
For example, we know that Wilson’s professors George S. Mor- United States in a compact form (Miewald 1984, 17–30). He ap-
ris, Herbert B. Adams, and Richard T. Ely studied in Heidelberg, plied the Hegelian dialectic to systematize the political economy and
Halle, and Berlin, respectively, where they had contact with Hegel’s administrative theory (Koslowski 1989, 53–74). Wilson cited Stein
prominent line of thought (Fine 1951, 600; Fries 1973, 394; during his lectures on administration and public law in order to
Wenley 1917, 109–17). Although prestigious researchers habitually define the very object of his investigation and the scope of adminis-
put more emphasis on Wilson’s British “intellectual heroes” (Still- trative functions: “The Nature of Administration . . . is the continu-
man 1973, 583; cf. Karl 1976), his German academic background ous and systematic carrying out in practice of all the tasks which
can be considered a well-established fact (Link 1947, 21; Luton devolve upon the State. . . . It deals directly, indeed, and principally
1999, 212; Miewald 1984, 17; Mulder 1978, 103; Raadschelders with the structural features and the operative organs of state life; . . .
2002, 589; Stillman 1973, 583; Thorsen 1988, 134–35). Hence, it ‘Die Idee des Staates ist das Gewissen der Verwaltung’ (Stein).10 The
seems safe to state, in the words of Spicer, that in the United States organs of government are nothing without the life of government;
“[e]arly public administration teachers and writers were clearly both and the organs of each State must advertise, in their peculiarities,
impressed by German administrative practice and influenced by the individual and national characteristics of the State to which they
various German ideas, including those of Hegel” (2001, 48). belong” (Link 1970b, 28–29; cf. Link 1969b, 124). Furthermore, it
seems that the American applied Stein’s Handbuch der Verwaltungs-
Hegel’s influence on Wilson is quite evident. lehre with the intention of emphasizing the
First and foremost, The Philosophy of Right ap- organic nature of government. What could be
Not only was Wilson able
pears in Wilson’s working bibliographies (Link discovered in the foregoing citation becomes
1969a, 586–87; 1970a, 129). In order to to read Hegel’s work in the even more apparent in the following quote.
underline the necessity of a new administra- original language. . . . he also Paraphrasing Stein (1870, 3–4), Wilson wrote
tive science, Wilson highlighted the historical consulted The Nation, which that “[e]very State is the historical form of the
changeableness of scientific phenomena with furnished him “with inspiration organic common life of a particular people,
a Hegelian statement: “The philosophy of any and philosophy”. . . . some form of organic political life, being in
time is, as Hegel says, ‘nothing but the spirit every instance commanded by the very nature
of that time expressed in abstract thought’; of man. No nation has ever been without an
and political philosophy, like philosophy of every other kind, has organic common life; nor can any nation ever break the continu-
only held up the mirror to contemporary affairs” (1887, 199). ity of that organic common life without instantly ceasing to be a
Between 1884 and 1885, Wilson learned about the Hegelian field of nation” (Link 1969b, 124). A rather jocular reference might give
knowledge during Morris’s course on the “Philosophy of the State” more evidence of how extensively Wilson relied on the German
at Johns Hopkins University (Link 1967, 335, 345). For Morris, scholar’s expertise. In 1891, Wilson informed one of his students
Hegel’s Philosophy of Right represented “the high-water mark . . . in at Johns Hopkins University that Stein’s Handbuch der Verwaltungs-
the treatment of the philosophical conception of the state” (1885, lehre would form a part of the exam for a “Minor in Administration”
163). To those students who were not able to read in German, (Link 1969b, 167).
Morris recommended Elisha Mulford’s The Nation. Like Morris,
Mulford (1881, 7–8) was—as he acknowledged himself—highly So far, we have argued that it is due to Hegel’s influential line of
influenced by Hegel. Not only was Wilson able to read Hegel’s work thought that Wilson and Weber converged on similar conceptions
in the original language (Link 1968, 385, 410), he also consulted of public administration. A discussion of the Hegelian line of think-
The Nation, which furnished him “with inspiration and philosophy” ing will further support this claim.
(Link 1968, 303).
Hegel’s Theory of Modern Bureaucracy
Additionally, Wilson was influenced by Johann K. Bluntschli’s Hegel perceived the state as an organism. Even though this might be
writings on bureaucracy (Spicer 2001, 44). He characterized considered a triviality, it is still the first and most obvious similarity
“Dr. Bluntschli [as] that most modern of Germans” (Link between Hegel’s and Wilson’s writings. In the German philosopher’s
1968, 54). As Bluntschli’s private library was acquired by Johns work, it is the organic body that dissolves the antagonism between
Hopkins University in 1882, Wilson had easy access to his expertise identity and nonidentity, or, to put it differently, that constitutes an
(Adams 1885, 122). Wilson made extensive use of Bluntschli’s integrated whole of individual parts. With regard to the functions of
Weber, Wilson, and Hegel: Theories of Modern Bureaucracy 1141
the state, Hegel distinguished nonidentical organs within the state. bureaucracy as the main governing organization in the modern
In terms of the purpose of the whole system, however, he pin- state” (1992, 381). The relationship between the individual’s welfare
pointed an identity of the organs: life (§269;11 cf. Gessmann 1999, and civil society is of high importance,12 especially the individual’s
39; 127–28). Indeed, the “organism” runs through the Hegelian need to be organized in order to guarantee one’s personal welfare.
teleological philosophy as a leitmotif. With their organic notion of In this context, Hegel wrote, “Given good laws, a state can flourish,
the state, Hegel and Wilson stand in contrast to Weber. The follow- and freedom of property is a fundamental condition of its prosper-
ing section will discuss Hegel’s positions on the concept of the state ity. Still, since I am inextricably involved in particularity, I have
more thoroughly. Because Hegel understood the emergence of the a right to claim that in . . . association with other particulars, my
modern public administration as an inevitable historical conse- particular welfare too shall be promoted” (§233). Hence, public
quence, his general view of history will be considered first. Then administration must guarantee that good laws are executed in order
his theory of bureaucracy will be described, before turning to our to maximize the welfare of the individuals.
discussion of Hegel’s analogies with Weber and Wilson.
Nonetheless, it is important to keep in mind that Hegel considered
The Emergence of the Rational State it the individual’s “supreme duty . . . to be a member of the state”
Hegelian world history is not a sequence of accidental events. “It is (§258). In addition to individual welfare, the state ought to pro-
rather the achievement of mankind working through history to gain mote the welfare of society as a whole. According to Hegel, maximal
a proper understanding of its developing nature and how best it can public welfare is not the sum of individual welfares. Rather than
live, and struggling to put these insights into effect” (Knowles 2002, relying on an invisible hand, the state should execute its tasks with
18). The Hegelian notion of history includes a dialectical process a clearly visible hand in order to strike the right balance between
toward the institution of freedom, or, to use his words, toward an the individual and the common will. Between individual and public
absolute self-knowledge of the Weltgeist (spirit of the world). Basi- welfare, there has to be “formed a system of complete interdepend-
cally, each successive period corrects the failures of the epochs that ence, wherein the livelihood, happiness, and legal status of one
preceded it. man is interwoven with the livelihood, happiness, and rights of all”
(§183). In §236, Hegel specified the tasks of public administration
Hegelian social history is seen as a sequence of several types of more precisely: “It has to undertake street-lighting, bridge-building,
Volksgeister (spirits of the people) that develop from an incomplete the pricing of daily necessaries, and the care of public health. . . .
community toward an ever more complete, absolute form of com- The individual must have a right to work for his bread as he pleases,
munity (Baberowski 2005, 52). “In history the dialectical processes but the public also has a right to insist that essential tasks shall be
of reason have generated a succession of forms of social life which properly done. Both points of view must be satisfied, and freedom
failed because they were able to recognize only a contradictory of trade should not be such as to jeopardize the general good.” Bu-
or one-sided conception of human spirit” (Knowles 2002, 18). reaucracy is needed for two reasons. First, it is indispensable for the
According to Hegel, feudalist structures had been replaced dur- protection of each individual’s property and thus for the promotion
ing the absolutist period, and the rational state with its formalized of every individual’s welfare. Second, the combination of personal
bureaucracy had emerged (Shaw 1992, 382). In this rational state, and public welfare must be carefully organized in order to guarantee
individuals would recognize that they were part of the expression the happiness and rights of all (§188).
of the Weltgeist, or that they were part of a complete and thus free
community. Hegel explicitly stated that the “state is the actuality of Hegel’s concept of bureaucracy is very similar to Wilson’s and
the ethical idea” (§257). Weber’s. Hegel also argued in favor of a formalized, rule-bound,
administrative system: “The nature of the executive functions [of
Hence, there is a striking parallelism between Hegel’s and Wilson’s public administration] is that they are objective and that in their
notions of history, especially their explanations for the emergence substance they have been explicitly fixed by previous decisions”
of the rational state (Zentner 2005, 119–24). Taking Weber into (§291; cf. §283 and §290). Furthermore, he wanted the bureauc-
consideration, all three theoreticians saw the periods of “feudalism” racy to be organized hierarchically: “The security of the state and its
and “absolutism” as important determinants of the emergence of the subjects against the misuse of power by ministers and their officials
modern bureaucratic state. With regard to “organic” terminology, lies directly in their hierarchical organization and their answer-
Wilson apparently followed Hegel, whereas Weber did not. The fol- ability” (§295). With regard to recruiting public servants, Hegel
lowing paragraphs describe the Hegelian public administration more advocated a meritocratic system. Appointment to office should be
thoroughly in order to show how strikingly his ideas converge not open to everyone. He specified that “individuals are not appointed
only with Wilson’s but also with Weber’s concept of bureaucracy. to office on account of their birth or native personal gifts. The objec-
tive factor in their appointment is knowledge and proof of ability.
Hegel’s Concept of Public Administration Such proof guarantees that the state will get what it requires; and
Just as Wilson would fear some decades later, Hegel assumed that since it is the sole condition of appointment, it also guarantees to
“[c]ivil society produces misery and displays extravagance and all every citizen the chance of joining the class of civil servants” (§291).
varieties of corruption” (Knowles 2002, 283). It may have been Hegel additionally stated, like Weber, that the professional public
for that reason that the German scholar dedicated a considerable servant “finds in his office his livelihood and the assured satisfaction
number of paragraphs in The Philosophy of Right to the “public of his particular interests” (§294). In summary, all three adminis-
authority charged with the infrastructural tasks necessary for the ef- trative scholars shared the view of a formalized, professionalized,
fective operation of the economy and the administration of justice” hierarchically organized, and meritocratic form of organization of
(Knowles 2002, 285). According to Carl K. Y. Shaw, “Hegel sees public administration.
1142 Public Administration Review • November | December 2009
Like Weber, Hegel saw the possibility of self-interested public serv- regard to the politics–administration dichotomy, it can be conclud-
ants, and thus the threat of a self-perpetuating bureaucracy (§295). ed that Weber did not emphasize the “same side of the balance” as
One of his propositions to restrict the power of the administrative Hegel and Wilson. Weber advocated a firm politics–administration
apparatus was, as has just been mentioned, a hierarchical bureaucratic dichotomy in order to keep the administration out of politics.
structure. In addition, he wanted control to “come from within the Wilson, however, agreed with Hegel, who believed that thoroughly
bureaucracy and ultimately from within each bureaucrat” (Jackson educated and thus morally upright public servants would best serve
1986, 149). He hoped that a new class of servants to the common the common will. For Hegel as well as for Wilson, a strict distinc-
will, rather than rulers of that will, would be established: “Civil serv- tion between the political and the administrative sphere was less
ants and the members of the executive constitute the greater part of important than for Weber. For Wilson, creation, not control, was
the middle class, the class in which the consciousness of right and the the central issue. In his view, private power and not public author-
developed intelligence of the mass of the people is found” (§297). ity was the main threat to freedom. In Hegel’s influential line of
In order to develop a consciousness of right, or, to put it in Stein’s administrative thought, he may have found arguments to support
and Wilson’s words, to make the idea of the state the conscience of a strong executive with a powerful, scientific public administration,
administration, public servants had to be educated. Hegel wrote that which may have looked un-American to many of his compatriots.
“the fact that a dispassionate, upright, and polite demeanor becomes It has been stated that in Hegelian history, each successive period
customary . . . is . . . a result of direct education in thought and ethi- corrects the failures of the previous epochs. We think that Wilson
cal conduct” (§296). But not only was the moral education impor- followed Hegel on many aspects of administrative theory because it
tant to the German philosopher. If the merely technical instruction of was obvious to him that U.S. administration was mired in several
public servants or, in other words, the “so-called ‘science’ of matters failures. The similarities and differences between the three scholars’
connected with administration” were combined with ethical aspects, arguments are summarized in table 1.
an altruistic as well as an effective government would result. Hence, a
significant part of “Hegel’s solution to the . . . problem of the selfish- Conclusion
ness . . . of bureaucracy was to school bureaucrats in a moral as well as This paper has attempted to show that Hegel’s political philosophy,
a functional mission” (Jackson 1986, 149; emphasis added). especially his work on bureaucracy, may help us understand the
convergence between Weber’s and Wilson’s administrative concepts.
Hegel thus interpreted the bureaucracy as a mixed blessing, quite It has been shown that they explained the emergence of bureaucratic
similarly to Weber. But his remedy for an overly potent position of structures similarly. However, Wilson put more emphasis on an evo-
public servants was not a politics–administration dichotomy. He lutionary process, on organic growth, whereas Weber described the
preferred control to have its source inside the administration. Hegel’s development of the administrative apparatus as a technical ration-
emphasis on the bureaucrat’s moral and technical education may be alization. With regard to “historical improvement,” we contend that
evocative of Wilson’s own claim for altruistic officials and his call for Wilson followed Hegel, in whose work the “organism” runs through
an administrative science. It seems sensible to contend that Wilson as a leitmotif.
agreed with Hegel. Both may have believed that if “the bureaucrats
lack political virtue, it will not be possible for citizens to identify with Fundamentally, we argue that both Hegel and, eight decades later,
the political community. Consequently, there will be no political his compatriot Weber anchored their writings in the German tradi-
community, no rational state, but only a sham” (Jackson 1986, 152). tion of a strong state with a strong executive and, consequently,
with an extensive body of public servants. Hegel’s influential line
Weber, Wilson, and Hegel concluded with conceptions of public of administrative thought contributed to the American Progressive
administration that were largely comparable. All three saw the emer- movement. In this respect, the German philosopher’s influence on
gence of rational administrative structures as an inevitable historical U.S. administrative theory has been underestimated. Obviously,
consequence. Furthermore, they unanimously described the public Hegel’s work on the subject of public administration is less ex-
administration as formalized, professionalized, hierarchical, and plicit and, therefore, more difficult to appreciate than Weber’s. The
meritocratic. All three authors intended to find the optimal balance present paper may serve as an attempt to make Hegel’s bureaucratic
between individual freedom and the authority of the state. With concept more easily accessible.

Table 1 Conceptions of Public Administration: Weber, Wilson, and Hegel

Criteria of Public Administration Weber Wilson Hegel
Notion of modernization Technical rationalization Evolutionary (organic growth) Evolutionary (organic growth)
Centralization, hierarchy of offices Yes Yes Yes
Professionalization Yes Yes Yes
Specialized education of public servants Yes Yes Yes
Recruitment of public servants: Meritocracy Meritocracy Meritocracy
Formalization Yes Yes Yes
(execution of tasks based on rational law)
Politics–administration dichotomy Administration out of politics Political and economic interests No
out of administration
Bold = convergence, italics = no convergence.

Weber, Wilson, and Hegel: Theories of Modern Bureaucracy 1143

On the whole, we think that it is due to a general normative orientation of American
notable degree to the typically German admin- [It is] due to a notable degree administrative science, be it the original Pro-
istrative tradition that American Progressive to the typically German gressive movement, the public choice school,
intellectuals advocated a hierarchical and thus or the neo-Progressive countermovement
administrative tradition
centralized, professionalized, as well as formal- (Lowery 1999). This is not a trivial statement
ized public administration. In order to change that American Progressive when we apply Spicer’s cue regarding Hegel
the apparently inefficient and corrupt admin- intellectuals advocated and Weber to Wilson, namely “that there are
istrative situation in the United States, Wilson a hierarchical and thus significant limits on our ability to draw theo-
studied European sources. He found convinc- centralized, professionalized, retical generalizations from their [Weber’s and
ing political arguments in favor of an enlarged as well as formalized public Hegel’s] ideas that are relevant to our own
executive and against corruption in Hegel’s particular time and place. We may be able to
administration.
political philosophy. Thus, we believe that it is gain important insights into the history of
because of Wilson’s debt to the Hegelian body ideas from Hegel and Weber, but we cannot
of knowledge or, in a broader sense, the German administrative tradi- necessarily hope to find universally applicable principles or theories”
tion, that he converged so interestingly with Weber in many points. (2004a, 101). Given the normative grounds of U.S. administra-
tive science, public administration concepts should be regarded as
Additionally, we have argued that Weber and Wilson have some- historical constructs and not universal solutions. Spicer states that
times been inaccurately compared with regard to the politics– “no matter how carefully we try, we cannot separate the political
administration dichotomy. Weber put more emphasis on a firm and social ideas expressed in our culture from our views on public
separation between the political and the administrative sphere. administration” (2004b, 359). However, this often seems to be the
He aimed at taking the highly rational and thus potentially over- case in the current employment of public administration concepts.
whelming administration out of politics. The reading of Hegelian A more historical or relativistic approach to public administration
political philosophy, however, allowed Wilson to believe in a class ideas might thus develop a less absolute perspective which is sensible
of educated, morally upright public servants who would serve the to the plethora of concrete administrative problems. Wilson knew
common will instead of their own egoistic interests. Wilson con- that the “philosophy of any time is, as Hegel says, ‘nothing but
sidered responsible bureaucrats a realistic option. Therefore, it was the spirit of that time expressed in abstract thought’; and political
not important for him to advocate a strict separation of the public philosophy, like philosophy of every other kind, has only held up
administration and politics. If anything, Wilson wanted to reduce the mirror to contemporary affairs” (1887, 199). Wilson’s conclu-
egoistic politicians’ influence on bureaucracy. sion may not only apply to political philosophy in general, but also
to public administration theory in particular.
Raadschelders states that “there is a growing need in public admin-
istration and political science for a better understanding of the past Acknowledgments
for the sake of the present and the future” (2003, 161). We would The authors gratefully acknowledge the comments of Dr. Hubert
like our paper to be taken as a contribution to this line of argument. Treiber, University of Hannover, and Dr. Sven Jochem, University
From a methodological perspective, we have shown that Ameri- of Konstanz, on an earlier version of this paper.
can scholars have not always approached public administration
with the methodological individualism that dominates the current Notes
public administration research agenda. Especially at the end of the 1. Weber attended the St. Louis Exposition of the Congress of Arts and
nineteenth century, holistic sociological and political conceptions Science in 1904 and may have been inspired by his experiences in
were appreciated. We think that this has a lot to do with the transfer the United States (Diggins 1985, 572). Furthermore, he mentioned
of knowledge from Germany to the United States. In addition, we Wilson’s name once in connection with the German participation in
believe that a trans-cultural hermeneutic approach as employed here the League of Nations (Weber 1919, 11). Nevertheless, we were not
can contribute to comparative administrative research. Comparative able to find reason to assume that any significant, direct interaction
scholars naturally concentrate on dissimilarities among bureaucratic on the subject of administrative theory took place between the two
traditions rather than analogies (e.g., Chandler 2000; Heady 1996; authors.
Heper 1987; Rutgers 2000; Stillman 1997). Thus, they suggest that 2. It goes without saying that around the turn of the twentieth century,
the German and the American path are very different. Although this Germany was not yet what it is now. In this paper, we associate the
interpretation is generally accurate, we can find that there are highly “German circumstances” with those in Prussia, which had a hegem-
interesting junctions between the German and the American admin- onic position after 1871.
istrative paths by analyzing the mutual perception of theoreticians 3. Regarding Weber and Hegel, revised publications are used in this
from both sides of the Atlantic. In general, quite many deviations paper. Originally, Hegel’s lectures on the philosophy of rights were
of an administrative path may be understood if we pay attention to published in 1820 under the title Grundlinien der Philosophie des Re-
the contact of that path with another bureaucratic tradition. Hence, chts (Elements of the Philosophy of Right). Although the year 1821 was
the transcultural approach is able to deal with change analytically. printed on the cover of the first edition, it was delivered in autumn
With regard to the German and the American administrative paths, of 1820 (Siep 1997, 5). In this paper, we use the fourth Suhrkamp
it may be found that they are not that different after all. edition of 1995, in which Hegel’s personal notes and comments
are included. Additionally, we use an English version (1952) of the
Finally, finding that Wilson’s work originates in normative German Philosophy of Right translated by T. M. Knox. The edition of Weber’s
idealism may further our appreciation of the common ground of a Economy and Society (1980) used for this paper has been revised as to

1144 Public Administration Review • November | December 2009

 the order and amount of texts. It was originally published in 1921 Philosophy of Right. For him, civil society stands between the political
by Weber’s wife, one year after his death. state and family life (Knowles 2002, 261–62).
4. The phrase Entzauberung der Welt can be translated as “disenchant-
ment of the world.” According to Edward Shils, “Max Weber re- References
garded the Entzauberung der Welt as the elimination of both magical Adams, Herbert B. 1885. Special Methods of Teaching History. In Meth-
and spiritual forces from the picture of the world; he regarded the ods of Teaching History, vol. 1, edited by Stanley G. Hall, 149–69.
refusal to acknowledge these powers as a culmination of one current Boston: Ginn, Heath & Co.
of the process of rationalization” (1987, 561). Anter, Andreas. 1995. Max Webers Theorie des modernen Staates: Herkunft,
5. Originally, Weber wrote, “und ein Verstoß gegen die Forschungs- Struktur und Bedeutung. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
methode ist es, wenn wir eine ‘Kulturstufe’ als etwas anderes als Baberowski, Jörg. 2005. Der Sinn der Geschichte: Geschichtstheorien von
einen Begriff ansehen, sie wie ein reales Wesen nach der Art der Hegel bis Foucault. München: Verlag C. H. Beck.
Organismen, mit denen die Biologie zu tun hat, oder wie eine He- Beetham, David. 1985. Max Weber and the Theory of Modern Politics.
gelsche ‘Idee’ behandeln, welche ihre einzelnen Bestandteile aus sich Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
‘emanieren’ läßt” (1988, 517). ———. 2006. Weber and Anglo-American Democracy: Analysis, Recep-
6. With regard to Wilson’s intellectual background, some authors have tion and Relevance. In Das Faszinosum Max Weber: Die Geschichte
emphasized the strong influence of religion in general and Calvin- seiner Geltung, edited by Karl-Ludwig Ay and Knut Borchardt,
ism in particular on his work. For example, Robert D. Cuff writes 343–52. Konstanz: UVK Verlagsgesellschaft mbH.
that “it is from his evangelical impulse . . . that Wilson derived Bluntschli, Johann Kaspar. 1875. Lehre von Modernen Staat. Vol. 1, Allge-
not only an idealism—even utopianism—alien to Weber, but also meine Statslehre. Stuttgart: Cotta’schen Buchhandlung.
a hopefulness about the future which the German theorist could Chandler, J. A., ed. 2000. Comparative Public Administration. London:
not share” (1978, 241). Furthermore, with regard to the emergence Routledge.
of the modern administrative U.S. state in general, it might be Cuff, Robert D. 1978. Wilson and Weber: Bourgeois Critics in an Or-
interesting to consult Richard J. Stillman’s Creating the American ganized Age. Public Administration Review 38(3): 240–44.
State: The Moral Reformers and the Modern Administrative World Diggins, John Patrick. 1985. Republicanism and Progressivism. American
They Made (2002). He argues that the administrative apparatus Quarterly 37(4): 572–98.
originated from a complex set of ideas which were influenced by Downs, Anthony. 1967. Inside Bureaucracy. Boston: Little, Brown.
strong moral idealism in the late nineteenth and early twentieth Eliaeson, Sven. 2006. Gunnar Myrdal as a Weberian Public Intellectual.
centuries. In Das Faszinosum Max Weber: Die Geschichte seiner Geltung, edited
7. Originally, Weber wrote, “Sine ira et studio, ‘ohne Zorn und Eing- by Karl-Ludwig Ay and Knut Borchardt, 283–300. Konstanz: UVK
enommenheit,’ soll der Beamte seines Amtes walten. . . . Partei- Verlagsgesellschaft mbH.
nahme, Kampf, Leidenschaft—ira et studium—sind das Element Fine, Sydney. 1951. Richard T. Ely, Forerunner of Progressivism,
des Politikers” (1980, 833). 1880–1901. Mississippi Valley Historical Review 37(4): 599–624.
8. Quite certainly, David Beetham would qualify this conclusion. He Fries, Sylvia D. 1973. Staatstheorie and the New American Science of
draws attention to Weber’s political writings, in which the adminis- Politics. Journal of the History of Ideas 34(3): 391–404.
trator “does not only act entirely sine ira et studio, but his outlook is Fry, Brian R., and Lloyd G. Nigro. 1996. Max Weber and U.S. Public
affected by the presumptions of social class. . . . As a power group it Administration: The Administrators as Neutral Servant. Journal of
[the bureaucracy] has the capacity to influence the goals of the politi- Management History 2(1): 37–46.
cal system; as a status stratum it has a more unconscious effect upon Gale, Scott A., and Ralph P. Hummel. 2003. A Debt Unpaid—Reinter-
the values of society at large” (1985, 67). Beetham generally thinks preting Max Weber on Bureaucracy. Administrative Theory and Praxis
that “it is mistaken to draw too sharp a distinction between Weber’s 25(3): 403–18.
political and sociological writings—scientific the one, polemical and Gessmann, Martin. 1999. Hegel. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder.
value-laden the other” (2006, 343). Heady, Ferrel. 1996. Public Administration: A Comparative Perspective.
9. For the sake of historical adequacy, it should be mentioned that the 5th ed. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Prussian bureaucracy developed from a premodern to a modern Hegel, Georg W. F. 1952. The Philosophy of Right. In Great Books of the
bureaucracy from the fifteenth to the eighteenth century. Hence, Western World, vol. 46, Hegel, edited by Robert Maynard Hutchins,
Weber, who worked almost a century after Hegel, witnessed an 1–153. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
administrative organization that differed quite substantially from the ———. 1995. Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts oder Naturrecht
one Hegel experienced. Nevertheless, we contend that the late eight- und Staatswissenschaft im Grundrisse. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp
eenth- and early nineteenth-century Prussian bureaucratic tradition Taschenbuch Wissenschaft.
persisted into the twentieth century. Obviously, the whole historical Heper, Metin, ed. 1987. The State and Public Bureaucracies: A Compara-
development was known to Weber. tive Perspective. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
10. In “The Study of Administration,” Wilson translated the exact same Hofstadter, Richard. 1974. The Age of Reform: From Bryan to F.D.R. New
passage of Stein’s administrative handbook as “the idea of the State is York: Alfred A. Knopf.
the conscience of administration” (1887, 201). Jackson, Michael W. 1986. Bureaucracy in Hegel’s Political Theory.
11. In Hegel’s work, instead of referring to page numbers, it is custom- Administration & Society 18(2): 139–57.
ary to refer to paragraph numbers, which are the same in every Jarausch, Konrad. 1988. The Universities: An American View. In Another
edition of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. Germany: A Reconsideration of the Imperial Era, edited by Jack R.
12. Hegel was one of the first to use the term bürgerliche Gesellschaft, Dukes and Joachim Remak, 181–207. Boulder, CO: Westview
which is translated as “civil society” in the English version of The Press.

Weber, Wilson, and Hegel: Theories of Modern Bureaucracy 1145

Karl, Barry D. 1976. Public Administration and American History: A Century of Professionalism. Public Administration Review 35(5): 489–503.
Knapp, Peter. 1986. Hegel’s Universal in Marx, Durkheim and Weber: The Role of Hegelian Ideas in the Origin of Sociology. Sociological Forum 1(4): 586–609.
Knowles, Dudley. 2002. Hegel and the Philosophy of Right. London: Routledge.
Koslowski, Stefan. 1989. Die Geburt des Sozialstaats aus dem Geist des Deutschen Idealismus: Person und Gemeinschaft bei Lorenz von Stein. Weinheim: VCH, Acta
Humaniora.
Lingelbach, Gabriele. 2002a. Erträge und Grenzen zweier Ansätze. Kulturtransfer und Vergleich am Beispiel der französischen und amerikanischen Geschichtswis-
senschaft während des 19. Jahrhunderts. In Die Nation schreiben. Geschichtswissenschaft im internationalen Vergleich, edited by Christoph Conrad and Sebastian
Conrad, 333–60. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
———. 2002b. The Historical Discipline in the United States: Following the German Model? In Across Cultural Borders. Historiography in Global Perspective,
edited by Eckhardt Fuchs and Benedikt Stutchey, 183–205. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
———. 2003. Klio macht Geschichte: Die Institutionalisierung der Geschichtswissenschaft in Frankreich und den USA in der zweiten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Link, Arthur S. 1947. Wilson. Vol. 1, The Road to the White House. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
———, ed. 1967. The Papers of Woodrow Wilson. Vol. 3, 1884–1885. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
———, ed. 1968. The Papers of Woodrow Wilson. Vol. 5, 1885–1888. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
———, ed. 1969a. The Papers of Woodrow Wilson. Vol. 6, 1888–1890. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
———, ed. 1969b. The Papers of Woodrow Wilson. Vol. 7, 1890–1892. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
———, ed. 1970a. The Papers of Woodrow Wilson. Vol. 8, 1892–1894. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
———, ed. 1970b. The Papers of Woodrow Wilson. Vol. 9, 1894–1896. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lowery, David. 1999. Answering the Public Choice Challenge: A Neoprogressive Research Agenda. Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administra-
tion 12(1): 29–55.
Luton, Larry S. 2003. Administrative State and Society: A Case Study of the United States of America. In Handbook of Public Administration, edited by B. Guy
Peters and Jon Pierre, 169–76. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Martin, Daniel W. 1988. The Fading Legacy of Woodrow Wilson. Public Administration Review 48(2): 631–36.
Marx, Karl. 1961. Aus der Kritik der Hegelschen Rechtsphilosophie. Kritik des Hegelschen Staatsrechts. In Werke, vol. 1, edited by Karl Marx and Friedrich
Engels, 201–333.
Mazrui, Ali A. 1968. From Social Darwinism to Current Theories of Modernization: A Tradition of Analysis. World Politics 21(1): 69–83.
McLean, Iain, ed. 1996. Concise Dictionary of Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Meier, Kenneth J., and George A. Krause. 2003. The Scientific Study of Bureaucracy: An Overview. In Politics, Policy, and Organizations: Frontiers in the Scientific
Study of Bureaucracy, edited by George A. Krause and Kenneth J. Meier, 1–19. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Meyer, Heinz-Dieter. 1995. Organizational Environments and Organizational Discourse: Bureaucracy between Two Worlds. Organization Science 6(1): 32–42.
Middel, Matthias. 2000. Kulturtransfer und Historische Komparatistik. Comparativ 10(1): 7–41.
Miewald, Robert D. 1984. The Origins of Wilson’s Thought: The German Tradition and the Organic State. In Politics and Administration: Woodrow Wilson and
American Public Administration, edited by Jack Rabin and James S. Bowman, 17–30. New York: Marcel Dekker.
———. 1994. European Administrative History and American Public Administration. In Jahrbuch für Europäische Verwaltungsgeschichte 6. Bilder der Verwaltung.
Memoiren, Karikaturen, Romane, Architektur Heyen, edited by Erk Volkmar, 319–28. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.
Morris, George S. 1885. The Philosophy of the State and of History. In Methods of Teaching History, vol. 1, edited by Stanley G. Hall, 149–66. Boston: Norwood Editions.
Mulder, John M. 1978. Woodrow Wilson: The Years of Preparation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Mulford, Elisha. 1881. The Nation: The Foundations of Civil Order and Political Life in the United States. Boston: Hurd & Houghton.
Niskanen, William A. Jr. 1973. Bureaucracy: Servant or Master? London: Institute of Economic Affairs.
Ostrom, Vincent. 1973. The Intellectual Crisis in American Public Administration. University: University of Alabama Press.
Ostrom, Vincent, and Elinor Ostrom. 1971. Public Choice: A Different Approach to Public Administration. Public Administration Review 31(2): 203–16.
Overeem, Patrick. 2005. The Value of the Dichotomy, Politics, Administration, and the Political Neutrality of Administrators. Administrative Theory and Praxis
27(2): 311–29.
Putnam, Robert D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Raadschelders, Jos C. N. 2000. Administrative History of the United States. Administration & Society 32(5): 499–528.
———. 2002. Woodrow Wilson on the History of Government: Passing Fad or Constitutive Framework for His Philosophy of Governance? Administration &
Society 34(5): 579–98.
———. 2003. Administrative History. Introduction. In Handbook of Public Administration, edited by B. Guy Peters and Jon Pierre, 161–68. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Ringer, Fritz. 2004. Max Weber: An Intellectual Biography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rosenbloom, David H. 2008. The Politics–Administration Dichotomy in U.S. Historical Context. Public Administration Review 68(1): 57–60.
Rutgers, Mark R. 2000. Public Administration and the Separation of Powers in a Cross-Atlantic Perspective. Administrative Theory and Praxis 22(2): 287–308.
Schieder, Theodor. 1984. Vom Norddeutschen Bund bis zum Ende der Monarchie. Grundzüge der politischen Entwicklung und geistige Grundlagen. In Deutsche
Verwaltungsgeschichte. Band 3. Das Deutsche Reich bis zum Ende der Monarchie, edited by Kurt G. A. Jeserich, Hans Pohl, and Georg-Christoph von Unruh,
1–16. Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt.
Shaw, Carl K. Y. 1992. Hegel’s Theory of Modern Bureaucracy. American Political Science Review 86(2): 381–89.
Shils, Edward. 1987. Max Weber and the World since 1920. In Max Weber and His Contemporaries, edited by Wolfgang J. Mommsen and Jürgen Osterhammel,
547–74. London: Allen and Unwin.

1146 Public Administration Review • November | December 2009

Siep, Ludwig. 1997. Vernunftrecht und Rechtsgeschichte. In G. W. F. Hegel, Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts, edited by Ludwig Siep, 5–31. Berlin: Akademie
Verlag GmbH.
Spicer, Michael W. 2001. Public Administration and the State: A Postmodern Perspective. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
———. 2004a. Note on Origins: Hegel, Weber, and Frederician Prussia. Administrative Theory and Praxis 26(1): 97–102.
———. 2004b. Public Administration, the History of Ideas, and the Reinventing Government Movement. Public Administration Review 64(3): 353–62.
Stein, Lorenz von. 1870. Handbuch der Verwaltungslehre und des Verwaltungsrechts. Stuttgart.
Stillman, Richard J., II. 1973. Woodrow Wilson and the Study of Administration: A New Look at an Old Essay. American Political Science Review 67(2): 582–88.
———. 1997. American vs. European Public Administration: Does Public Administration make the Modern State, or Does the State Make Public Administra-
tion? Public Administration Review 57(4): 332–38.
———. 2002. Creating the American State: The Moral Reformers and the Modern Administrative World They Made. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Thorsen, Niels Aage. 1988. The Political Thought of Woodrow Wilson, 1875–1910. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Treiber, Hubert. 2007. Moderner Staat und moderne Bürokratie bei Max Weber. In Max Webers Staatssoziologie: Positionen und Perspektiven, edited by Andreas
Anter and Stefan Breuer, 121–55. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Van Riper, Paul P. 1984. The Politics–Administration Dichotomy: Concept or Reality? In Politics and Administration: Woodrow Wilson and American Public Admin-
istration, edited by Jack Rabin and James S. Bowman, 203–18. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Walker, Larry. 1989. Woodrow Wilson, Progressive Reform, and Public Administration. Political Science Quarterly 104(3): 509–25.
Weber, Max. 1919. Deutschlands künftige Staatsform. Frankfurt am Main: Druck und Verlag der Frankfurter Societäts-Druckerei GmbH.
———. 1952. Die drei reinen Typen der legitimen Herrschaft. In Legitimität und Legalität in Max Webers Herrschaftssoziologie, edited by Johannes Winckelmann,
106–20. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).
———. 1972. Gesammelte politische Schriften. In Legitimität und Legalität in Max Webers Herrschaftssoziologie, edited by Johannes Winckelmann. Tübingen: J.
C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).
———. 1980. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft: Grundriss der verstehenden Soziologie. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).
———. 1988. Der Streit um den Charakter der altgermanischen Sozialverfassung. In Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte, edited by Marianne
Weber, 508–56. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).
———. 1990. Wissenschaft als Beruf. In Über das Studium der Geschichte, edited by Wolfgang Hardtwig. München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag.
———. 1992. Politik als Beruf. In Max Weber. Gesamtausgabe. Abteilung I: Schriften und Reden. Vol. 17, edited by Horst Baier et al., 157–252. Tübingen: J. C. B.
Mohr (Paul Siebeck).
———. 1994. Briefe 1909–1910. In Max Weber. Gesamtausgabe. Abteilung II: Briefe. Vol. 6, edited by Horst Baier et al., 172–75. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul
Siebeck).
Weikart, Richard. 1993. The Origins of Social Darwinism in Germany, 1859–1895. Journal of the History of Ideas 54(3): 469–88.
Welty, Gordon A. 1976. Hegel and Weber: From Transcendence to Rationalization. Paper presented to CHEIRON: International Society for the History of the
Social Sciences, Smithsonian Institution, May 29, Washington, DC.
Wenley, Robert M. 1917. The Life and Work of Georg Sylvester Morris: A Chapter in the History of American Thought in the Nineteenth Century. New York: Macmil-
lan.
Whimster, Sam. 2006. Die Übersetzung des Begriffes “Geist.” In Max Webers Grundbegriffe: Kategorien der kultur- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Forschung, edited by
Klaus Lichtblau, 317–36. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Wilson, Woodrow. 1887. The Study of Administration. Political Science Quarterly, 2(2): 197–222.
———. 1892. The State: Elements of Historical and Practical Politics; A Sketch of Institutional History and Administration. Boston: D.C. Heath & Co.
Zentner, Scot J. 2005. Regimes and Revolutions: Madison and Wilson on Parties in America. In The Progressive Revolution in Politics and Political Science:
Transforming the American Regime, edited by John Marini and Ken Masugi, 103–32. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Attention Instructors....Don’t Miss This!

Any university with a current, paid subscription to PAR may make copies for course-pack use
provided the copies are not being made/distributed for commercial gain.:

It’s easier than ever to support your teaching with PAR in the classroom!

Check with your university Library for more information.

Weber, Wilson, and Hegel: Theories of Modern Bureaucracy 1147