The period spanning from the aftermath of the American Civil War to the conclusion of World War II witnessed a significant transformation in America, characterized by the emergence of dominant large-scale organizations in both the private and public sectors. Alfred Chandler’s seminal works, “The Visible Hand” and “Scale and Scope,” chronicle the advent of “managerial capitalism,” where extensive economic bureaucracies in industries such as railroads, oil, steel, automobiles, electricity, and telecommunications laid the groundwork for a robust economy.
Similarly, the organization of the state underwent a process of centralization, bureaucratization, and increased control across various domains, commonly referred to as the “Progressive Agenda.” This shift towards more professional and scientific governance, often characterized by bureaucratic hierarchies replacing localism and polycentric systems, is a recurring theme in the historiography of the United States.
For instance, Samuel Hays’ work, “Conservation And The Gospel Of Efficiency,” delves into the Progressive Conservation Movement, highlighting the tension between proponents of controlled development guided by scientists and technicians and advocates for grassroots involvement through elected representatives. Similarly, Daniel Carpenter’s “The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy” examines the ascent of modern executive agencies like the Post Office, which had to overcome resistance and political opposition to establish centralized control.
In education, David Tyack’s “The One Best System” narrates the evolution of urban school systems into modern, scientific organizations, albeit amidst struggles to consolidate control over decentralized schools and districts. Furthermore, Hernando de Soto’s analysis in “The Mystery of Capital” sheds light on the historical struggle over property rights in the expansion of the United States, showcasing the tension between de facto recognition of land use and attempts at top-down, rational systems.
Throughout these narratives, the rhetoric of “scientific,” “efficient,” and “modern” governance was used to justify the consolidation of power in centralized organizations. However, these organizations faced staunch opposition from grassroots movements, local politics, and individuals reluctant to relinquish their autonomy. The resulting struggle was messy, prolonged, and conflicted, as citizens asserted their rights and voices in democratic processes.
Bill Easterly’s “The Tyranny of Experts” emphasizes the importance of this struggle, arguing that mainstream development efforts often overlooked its necessity. The belief that modernization could be achieved through technical exercises and transplantation of successful models from developed countries proved inadequate, as it failed to account for the messy process of citizen empowerment, resistance, and feedback.
The notion that functionality is transferable simply by mimicking forms without function led to a lack of accountability and insulation from local realities. Developing countries found themselves with state organizations ill-equipped to handle the complexities of governance, highlighting the indispensable role of struggle in achieving functionality and effective governance. Just as one cannot juggle without the struggle to learn and adapt, state organizations cannot function effectively without grappling with the challenges of citizen empowerment and local context.