Structure of Government
November 5, 2009 by Flapper
Filed under Government
Changes in the Structure of Government
The authority of government in the United States has traditionally been weakened by the division of powers between the national government and the states, between states and localities, and further by the three-fold division of powers between legislature, executive and judiciary.
The first of these divisions was shattered by the events of the Civil War and has been progressively modified since that time, never more actively than during recent years. There is reason to anticipate the progressive development of centralization in the face of the rise of interstate commerce under modern economic conditions, the increasing importance of foreign trade, finance and diplomacy, and the sweeping changes in modes of communication.
At the same time centralization in state government is growing, especially with respect to rural governments, and bids fair to advance still farther. So rapidly is this movement progressing that the preservation of an adequate degree of local self-government is a matter of great concern, and one of the large problems of the future is the determination of the desirable primary unit of government.
In the meantime a new competitor for power has arisen in the form of the metropolitan region, which now looms large both in numbers and in wealth. Six such regions contain nearly half of the population of the United States and show rates of growth far above that of other sections of the country. This trend if projected for another generation would place the center of political power in the larger cities. In view of the present economic situation, there is some question whether this trend will be as strongly marked in the near future, but in any case the upward thrust of the urban center is one of the most striking features of the period under consideration, and gives rise to innumerable problems of politics and government. How shall the new metropolitan complex be drawn together in some less chaotic form of governmental framework including the city and its satellites, especially when they spread over more than one county or state; what shall be their relation to the state and national governments; what shall be the principle of distribution of taxation and political authority; shall the cities be given home rule, or strictly regulated by states, or set up as independent commonwealths as has been suggested in recent years; or shall some other method be found as a result of the present day groping toward a way out of an admittedly impossible situation?
Broadly speaking, notable advances have been made in the government of urban communities during the period just past, where indeed both the brightest and the darkest spots in American public life were evident. If freebooting has been highly organized in some cities, there has also been an impressive development of organized efficiency. The attention given to public administration under the influence of such movements as the city manager plan has not been surpassed anywhere in our governmental system and gives promise of important advance.
Rural government, while less spectacularly corrupt, has been in many cases incompetent, especially under the disrupting influence of the new distribution of wealth and populations and the new methods of transportation. At the end of this period, however, there has appeared intense interest in the reorganization of these outworn units and the reconstruction of new types of rural-urban government, with striking experiments in rebuilding and strong prospects for an advance which ten years ago would have been regarded as utopian. Transfer of functions, consolidation, coordination and creation of new units are methods already under way in the effort to establish a more practical form of local government.
The power to act within the three-fold separation of governmental authorities likewise shows the emergence of centralized power, and the forecast indicates still further development toward the central focus of authority.
The executive has gained in prestige and power in the national and state government, and in some cities where the power of the mayor has been expanded. Increased veto power, larger appointing power, facility in popular appeal, and growth of administrative functions have all tended to exalt the position of the executive. The familiarity of the public with the “strong man” with large authority in business and social relations has also helped in this movement.
The almost omnipotent legislative authority set up at the outset of our national development has steadily lost to the courts on the one side and the executive on the other; and this process has gone on more rapidly than ever during recent years. The only exception of note is the rise of the city council in the city manager cities and the board in school affairs.
Yet the maxim, “It is the function of many to deliberate and of one to act,” contains the essence of much past experience and wisdom of government, under a variety of different systems, and it seems probable that representative bodies will occupy places of power and distinction in the organization of society, under any development of executive power or administrative authority.
Source: Recent Social Trends in the United States, an examination of the social state of the United States at the end of the 1920s undertaken at the direction of President Herbert Hoover.
Related posts: