Federalism with a Bureaucratic Face

  • Wayne Hunt


Ours is an age of ideas. Why this is so has much to do with changes in the world order and with the exhaustion of the attendant ‘isms’ that gave rise and sanction to the great wars, both hot and cold, of this century. It was said that in 1989 peace broke out throughout the world. Like all engaging generalities this was not quite true. War had been banished to the inner cities and to the developing world. The calming of the cold war loosed a whirlwind of ideas about the reordering of societies in the new global order.


Global Order British Institution Engaging Generality Political Sovereignty Parliamentary Sovereignty 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Jacques Attali, ‘Lines on the Horizon: A New Order in the Making’, New Perspectives Quarterly (Spring, 1990), pp. 4–11.Google Scholar
  2. Eliot Cohen ‘The Future of Force and America’s Strategy’, The National Interest, No. 21 (Autumn 1990), pp. 3–15.Google Scholar
  3. 2.
    In an earlier era James Burnham had written of a managerial revolution in which the world divided into three superstates, ruled by a caste of managers, scientists and bureaucrats. George Orwell took powerful exception to what Burnham was saying on the grounds that his ‘realism’ led to a fascination with power, a glorification of those who hold power and an easy acceptance of the status quo. Refer to Orwell’s classic essay ‘Burham’s View of the Contemporary World Struggle’ in S. Orwell and I. Angus (eds) The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell, Vol. IV: 1945–1950 (London: Secker & Warburg, 1968), pp. 313–26.Google Scholar
  4. 3.
    Rupert Emerson, From Empire to Nation: The Rise to Self-Assertion of Asian and African Peoples (Boston: Beacon Press, 1960), pp. 95–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 4.
    Robert Reich, ‘The American 80’s: Disaster or Triumph’, Commentary, Vol. 90, No. 3 (September 1990), p. 16.Google Scholar
  6. Robert Reich, The Work of Nations: Capitalism in the 21st Century (New York: Knopf, forthcoming 1991).Google Scholar
  7. 5.
    See David Marquand, Faltering Leviathan: National Sovereignty, the Regions and Europe (London: Wyndam Place Trust, 1989), p. 43.Google Scholar
  8. 6.
    Refer to K. Minogue et al., Is National Sovereignty a Big Bad Wolf?, Bruges Group Occasional Paper No. 6 (London: Paris Publishing, 1990).Google Scholar
  9. 7.
    Herbert Schiller, Culture Inc. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), p. 120.Google Scholar
  10. 8.
    See the survey in D.V. Smiley, The Federal Condition in Canada (Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1987), pp. 18–19.Google Scholar
  11. 9.
    Samuel Beer, in specific reference to the United States, has styled this a ‘technocrat’ vs. ‘topocrat’ fight. He composed the term ‘topocrat’ from the Greek ‘topos’ or place or locality and ‘kratos’ or authority. Topocrats refer, then, to state or local government officials. See his ‘Federalism, Nationalism and Democracy in America’ in the American Political Science Review, Vol. 72, No. 1 (March 1978), pp. 18-19. A parallel point is made by Sydney Tarrow, ‘Introduction’ in S. Tarrow et al (eds), Territorial Politics in Industrial Nations (New York: Praeger, 1978).Google Scholar
  12. 10.
    Richard Simeon, ‘Considerations on Centralization and Decentralization’, Canadian Public Administration, No. 29, Vol. 3 (Autumn 1986), pp. 445–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Edmund Burke (ed. T. Mahoney), Reflections on the Revolution in France (New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1955), pp. 86–100.Google Scholar
  14. In the twentieth century, F.A. Hayek has taken the Burkean insistence that law and the institutions of society should grow out of experience, a’ social evolutionism’, and fused it with an enthusiasm for the market, for’ spontaneous order’. Refer to F.A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960)Google Scholar
  15. 12.
    Weber contrasted Germany’s ‘negative politics’ and underdeveloped parliamentarianism with the opposite condition which prevailed in England. Refer to ‘Parliament and Government in a Reconstructed Germany. (A Contribution to the Political Critique of Officialdom and Party Politics)’ in M. Weber, Economy and Society, Vol. 2, G. Roth and C. Wittich (eds) (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968), pp. 1381–1420.Google Scholar
  16. 13.
    This Mannheim labelled ‘bureaucratic conservatism’. He wrote that: ‘The fundamental tendency of all bureaucratic thought is to turn all problems of politics into problems of administration. As a result the majority of books on politics in the history of German political science are de facto treatises on administration’ Karl Mannheim, Ideology and Utopia (London: Roudedge and Kegan Paul, 1936), p. 105.Google Scholar
  17. 14.
    Franz Neumann, Chapter 8, ‘On the Theory of the Federal State’ in F. Neumann, The Democratic and The Authoritarian State, H. Marcuse (ed.) (New York: Free Press, 1957), p. 229.Google Scholar
  18. 15.
    The point is elegantly taken in Bernard Crick, In Defense of Politics (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1962).Google Scholar
  19. Benjamin Barber, The Conquest of Politics: Liberal Philosophy in Democratic Times (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988).Google Scholar
  20. 16.
    Ralf Dahrendorf, Reflections on the Revolution in Europe (London: Chatto & Windus, 1990).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Bruges Group 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wayne Hunt

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations