Alexander Hamilton and Hamiltonianism
Osman Gökhan Hatipoğlu
*
Abstract: The birth of the American Public Administration discipline has generally been
considered a 20th Century development. However, the Foundation Era has deep and
permanent impacts on the structure of the US Public Administration. During that Era,
there appeared two distinct administrative views corely based on the conflict of opinion
on the power of the central government, which dates back to the debates on the US
Constitution. The debates that focus around this intellectual dichotomy of
Hamiltonianism vs. Jeffersonianism/Madisonianism still maintain their heat at present.
In this study, the works, the Federalist Papers and administration concept of Alexander
Hamilton–one of the Founding Fathers - are examined with an aim to analyze the said
dichotomy. It was concluded at the end of the study that the influences of the twohundred-years-old administrative concept of Hamilton still continues, and that
Hamiltonianism is almost coded in the public administration discipline of USA.
Keywords: American public administration discipline, America’s constitution,
Alexander Hamilton, federalist papers, Jeffersonianism, Hamiltonianism,
Madisonianism.
*
PhD student, Ankara University, Faculty of Political Sciences, 06590, Çankaya/Ankara/Turkey.
Review of Public Administration, Volume 7, Issue 4, December 2013, p.51-80.
52
Review of Public Administration, Volume 7 Issue 4, December 2013, p.51-80.
Introduction
American Public Administration discipline has been dominantly influencing
Turkish Public Administration discipline since the 1950s. Due to this influence
that manifests itself both in the academic field and applied field, there is need
for better understanding American Public Administration. The subject of this
study is how works and thoughts of Alexander Hamilton, who, by his major
contributions to the formation of the U.S. Constitution and U.S. Public
Administration, is considered among “the founding fathers” of the United States
of America, have influenced American management philosophy and practice.
However, in the relevant Turkish literature there is not any explanatory study
about Hamilton’s role in the founding era of the United States of America. The
public administration literature in Turkey lacks the founding era of the United
States, the founders’ philosophy of administration and the impacts of this first
era on the current administrative science. This article aims to analyze this
important field in the case of Alexander Hamilton and the Hamiltonian thought.
In the relevant Turkish literature, the only study that can be considered about
Hamilton is the Turkish translation of the Constitution-related Federalist Papers
published in 1962.1
The founding era of the United States and the historical process that ended
with the establishment of the federation should be known in order to better
understand Hamilton’s views. To this end, first, the study will provide
information about the historical process; then, of the Federalist Papers, one of
the most important works on the U.S. Constitution and administrative structure,
which were jointly written by Hamilton, Jay, and Madison, those written by
Hamilton and his other works on the administrative science will be examined.
Afterwards, Hamilton’s notion of administration, which can be called as
Hamiltonianism,2 will be described, and his approach will be compared with the
opposing views of the founding era. Finally, the influence of Hamilton’s
thoughts and views on American Public Administration and policies that has
continued to present times will be evaluated.
The said translation was made and published by Mümtaz Soysal in 1962. See: Ralph H. Gabriel, (1960),
Hamilton, Madison and Jay On the Constitution- Selections From the Federalist Papers, New York:The
Liberal Arts Press, translated by Soysal, Mümtaz, (1962), Hamilton, Madison ve Jay- Anayasa Üzerine
Düşünceler: Federalistlerin Makalelerinden Seçmeler, Yenilik Basımevi, İstanbul.
2
The term ‘Hamiltonianism’ is often used in the American literature on the field, particularly in the works on
the concept of presidency and politics. See: Raymond Tatalovich and Thomas S. Engeman, (2003), The
Presidency and Political Science: Two Hundred Years of Constitutional Debate, John Hopkins University
Press: p. 214-232), Herbert J. Storing, (1995), Toward A More Perfect Union, (Ed. Joseph M. Bessette) ,
The AEI Press, Washington, (p. 411). Philip Abbott, (1996),The Exemplary Presidency: Franklin D.
Roosevelt and the American Political Tradition, The University of Massachussetts Press (p. 20).
1
Alexander Hamilton and Hamiltonianism
53
American Public Administration Discipline: Its Roots
American Public Administration is often studied as the discipline of the 20th
century. The reason is that the theoretical developments in the discipline have
mostly occurred in this century. Accordingly, the American Public
Administration historians mostly tend to regard the people, who contributed to
the discipline during the Progressive Era in the 20th century, as the founders of
Public Administration. According to Güler (2006: 6), “in the administrative
science, which is examined predominantly in the light of the case of the United
States, the establishment of the field has been mainly attributed to an article
written by Woodrow Wilson”. Indeed, this artificial milestone, which Wilson
identified forth history of American Public Administration, causes the
negligence of the history of the United States that dated back to more than a
century before the date the articlewas published3. In one of the very few number
of studies on the influences before that date, Martin (1987: 301-302) implied
that American Public Administrationwas influenced by the 19th century French
thought of Public Administration, and pointed to the similarities between these
two disciplined. Çiner (2009:6), who lays emphasis on the same era, says, “The
conception of public administration that emerged in France was adopted and
defined by the Americans with the motive of distinguishing state administration
and corporate management”. France’s notion of state and administration that
stood out as one of the sovereign countries of the period, and which was once
the colonial neighbor of the United States on the Continent of America,
naturally influenced the United States. However, the U.S. public administration
was influenced by the British Empire, by which it was governed as its colony.
This influence was indirect, since the founders of the United States fought
against the British sovereignty and made revolution. After the declaration of
independence, a public administration understanding was synthesized in the
intellectual world of the founders in the process of transition to the
constitutional federal state. Although at that time, the British Monarch was
declared as the natural enemy of the United States, due to the British-influenced
knowledge of the founders, there had been an indirect and evolved influence of
the British in the state order, which was constructed from scratch according to
the social, political, and economic structure of the United States.4
The relationship between the British and American public administration is
not the direct subject of this study. However, it is clear that the administration
understanding of the founding era, when the indirect influence of Britain was
Wilson’s said article, “The Study of Administration” was published in 1887; the U.S. Declaration of
Independence was adopted in1776.
4
The U.S. and British public administration disciplines are very close to one another, and are classified as the
Anglo-Saxon disciplines separately from the administrative science in Continental Europe.
3
54
Review of Public Administration, Volume 7 Issue 4, December 2013, p.51-80.
intense, is important in exploring the origin of American public administration.
Due to the widespread acceptance of Wilson’s article as the starting point of the
discipline, the influence of the founders of the Constitutional Republic such as
Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison in American
Public Administration is overlooked. Thus, this study, with an aim to
understand these influences, will scrutinize the thoughts, administration
understanding of Hamilton, who was one of the most influential personalities
among the founders both intellectually and practically, and his role in American
public administration. However, in order to better understand Hamilton, it
should be once more noted how the British understanding of the state,
constitution and public administration naturally influenced the colony-born
Hamilton with a British academic education.5
Hamilton’s views in favor of centralization and strong executive power, who
strongly advocated federalism in the process of constitution-making, are still
today advocated, and have counterparts in American public administration
discipline. Aside from his intellectual influence over the discipline, as an active
public administrator and an economic bureaucrat, he had also major role in the
emergence of U.S. public administration practice. Hamilton, who was the first
Secretary of Treasury of the federal state, established the first state bank and the
finance, trade and customs bureaucracy of the country. Considering that at that
time, in the United States, there were only four ministries responsible for all
executive functions and the Post Office, the first government, which Hamilton
took part, his important role in the establishment of public administration will
be better understood.6 These experiences reinforce Hamilton’s role in the origin
of American public administration discipline.
The United States in the Era of Hamilton: From Colony to
Independence; from Confederation to Federal State
The first permanent European settlement in the present United States was
established by the Spanish in mid-1500s at St. Augustine in Florida. The main
development occurred in settlements in the north of the Atlantic coast, i.e. in
Virginia, Massachusetts, New York, and other areas colonized by a growing
tide of European immigrants [BIIP (Bureau of International Information
Programs/U.S. Department of State's), 2011:6]. Most of the European
immigrants, who came to the colonies in the early 17th century, were English.
Others came from the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany, France, and later from
Alexander Hamilton’s short life story is provided in Annex 1.
Secretary of State (including foreign affairs) Thomas Jefferson; Secretary of Treasury; Secretary of War
Henry Knox; Attorney General Edmund Randolph served in the first cabinet under the Presidency of George
Washington.
5
6
Alexander Hamilton and Hamiltonianism
55
Scotland and Northern Ireland. Both industry and agriculture developed in the
Middle colonies, such as New York and Pennsylvania; besides, there, the
development of the society was more varied and cosmopolitan. In the Southern
colonies, the economy was primarily based on agriculture. There, both small
farmers and wealthy aristocratic landowners, who had large plantations worked
by African slaves, became influential (BIIP, 2011:8). These social and
economic differences between the North and South caused long-term conflicts
in the U.S. political life.
The settlement of the American colonies was directly financed not by the
British government, but by private capital groups. All settlements except
Georgia emerged as companies of shareholders or as proprietorships chartered
by the king. Some were governed strictly by company leaders, but over time, all
of them developed a system of participatory government based on the British
Constitution and traditions. The administrative problems faced with the
Glorious Revolution of 1688-89 that imposed limits on the monarchy and
greater freedoms for the people in Britain served the British colonies in the
United States. Colonial assemblies under the sovereignty of Britain began to
claim the right to act as local parliaments. They passed laws that limited the
power of royal governors and expanded their own power (BIIP, 2011: 8-11).
Britain’s 13 North American colonies became partially autonomous during the
1700s; they developed in terms of in population, economic strength, and
culture. Britain, after winning victory in its war with France in the 1750s, which
was partly fought in North America, increased its administrative and financial
pressures in the Continent.
Britain’s increased tax pressures and economic sanctions between 1763 and
1765 caused the reaction of colonies7. Reactionary movements that sparked in
the Colonies led to the riot called the Boston Tea Party8 in 1773, and the elected
representatives of colonies gathered in the First Continental Congress to which
Hamilton attended as delegate in Philadelphia in 1774 (BIIP, 2011: 11-18).
Following the agreement reached after the Congress, the American
Revolutionary War began as a minor battle between British troops and armed
7
During that period, restrictions were brought to the opening of new lands for settlement; the Sugar Act of
1764 imposed taxes on luxury goods such as coffee, silk, and wine, and the importation of rum was banned.
Later, the printing of paper money in the colonies was prohibited with the Currency Act of 1764.The
Quartering Act of 1765 stipulated colonists to provide food and housing for royal troops. Finally, the Stamp
Act of 1765 required the purchase of royal stamps for all legal documents, newspapers, licenses, and leases.
8
In 1773, the reactional nationalist movement, which began to be organized, attracted the colonial merchants
to itself, who held anger with Britain that tried to control tea trade. In December, a group of rioters entered
three British ships loaded with tea and threw all tea in the Boston Harbor. The British Parliament wanted to
punish Massachusetts for this vandalism. The Parliament closed Boston harbor, and brought restricitons to
local government. However, these new restrictions introduced under the name of “IntolerableActs”
backlashed, and colonies decided to act together .
56
Review of Public Administration, Volume 7 Issue 4, December 2013, p.51-80.
colonists on 19 April 1775. During the war, the Second Continental Assembly
appointed a committee, headed by Thomas Jefferson to draw up a document
outlining the colonies’ complaints against the king, and announcing their
decision to break away. This document, which was called the Declaration of
Independence, was adopted on 4 July 1776.
After the war, with the political support of France, the independence,
freedom, and sovereignty of the 13 former American colonies were
acknowledged by the Treaty of Paris of 1783, and the colonies became the
United States of America in line with the framework for their common struggle,
which they signed before the war ended. This structure, which was called the
Articles of Confederation provided for an extremely loose and fragile union,
which George Washington described as a “rope of sand”.9
Owing to unrest among the states during the Confederate administration, five
states held a convention at Maryland-Annapolis in 1786. The New York
delegate Alexander Hamilton stated that the problems experienced in interstate
trade were part of bigger economic and social problems, and argued re was need
to reconsider the Confederation. Hamilton, with other delegates having the same
opinion with him, and alsothanks to Washington’s support, paved the way for a
second convention.
In fact, the Continental Congress granted the convention to amend the
Confederation Law. However, delegates put aside the Confederation Law aside,
thinking that it was inadequate for the new nation, and created a new state
model based on the separation of the powers of the executive, the legislature,
and the judiciary. That is to say, the Second Convention turned into a founding
parliament: Despite differences of opinion, a draft Constitution was prepared. It
was enacted following the one-year approval process, and current United States
of America was founded as a federal state. This cooperation about the
Constitution is striking. However according to Zinn (2005:105), the
Constitution was like a compromise protocol between slaveholding interests of
the South and moneyed interests of the North. While the Northern delegates
were in pursuit of laws regulating interstate commerce, the Southerns approved
the Constitution in return for the continuance of slave trade. Alexander
Hamilton shared major part of his views, which are still influential in the U.S.
public administration in Federalist Papers, where he supported and advocated
the Constitution in the constitution-making process.
9
In the Confederation, there was no common currency; there was no national military force. There was very
little centralized control over foreign policy. Besides, there was no national system for imposing and
collecting taxes.
Alexander Hamilton and Hamiltonianism
57
The Hamilton Influence on the American Constitution
In Article VII of the Constitution, which the states constituting the core of the
United agreed on, the approval of nine states would be sufficient for the
enforcement of the Constitution between the states ratifying it10. In the process
of the ratification of the Constitution, heated debates occurred between the
proponents of the Constitution led by politicians like George Washington and
Benjamin Franklin and the opponents (Johnson, 2004: vi). The difference of
opinion between the delegates, who advocated more independent states and a
relatively weaker central government, and the delegates favoring a strong
central government have had impacts on the American management philosophy
that have continued to the present day. The Anti-Federalists opposed the
Constitution, claiming that an extremely strong central government similar to
monarchy could become tyrannical and oppressive (BIIP, 2011:24-25). The
Federalists, including Alexander Hamilton, advocated that a democratic and
strong government was envisaged by the Constitutional system, which was
designed so as to ensure the separation of legislative and judicial powers and
their mutual supervision (check and balance).
In the fall of 1787 and the spring of 1788, when debates and voting were
continuing, Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote a series of essays to
support the process of ratification (Maggs, 2007: 801). 8511 essays comprising
the Federalist Papers were hastily written in order to persuade the public
opinion and potential delegates regarding the constitutions, whose draft was
drawn up and submitted to the ratification of the states12. The essays have
reputation and significance that go beyond its era. Today, everyone engaged in
the U.S. Constitutional Law has to be familiar with the Federalist Papers. They
are referred to as source of evidence in the court decisions related to the
Constitution (Maggs, 2007: 802-803). In the United States, the Federalist Papers
are the second most referenced historical source on the Constitution after the
Constitution itself, and have become the subject of numerous studies. These
papers, which are often referred in Supreme Court decisions as well, maintain
their importance in the current jurisprudence in the United States. The
consistent and coherent construction of the essays also plays role in this
The original version of this text in the Constitution is as follows: “The Ratification of the Conventions of
Nine States”, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the
Same”, The United States Constitution, Article VII: http://www.
house.gov/house/Constitution/Constitution.html, (12.12.2011).
11
A table showing the number, author, and subject of the Federalist papers is annexed herewith.
12
Hamilton, in view of the need for starting propaganda in order to advocate the planned changes in the
administration with the constitution, began to publish the Federalist Papers in four of five newspapers in
New York from October 1787 on. The Federalist Papers were written under the pseudonym “Publius” by
Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, and were prepared as a result of intensive work that
reached four essays a week.
10
58
Review of Public Administration, Volume 7 Issue 4, December 2013, p.51-80.
importance. According to Gabriel, “It is not possible not to bow with respect to
the soundness of judgment which the Federalists, who emerged as the advocates
of the Constitution following its preparation, displayed, whatever their
underlying motives” (Gabriel, 1960: x).
The essays played major role in the ratification process of the Constitution.
Another important reason was that the essays, which primarily defended a
centralist, strong government, were more easily welcomed by the public during
a period, when the Confederation experienced instability due to the
administrative weaknesses. Accordingly, a study on the U.S. Constitution
describes that period as follows: “The Confederation government was not
strong enough to govern the new nation. It lacked an executive branch and a
system of national courts. It could not regulate trade between the states or
could tax the states or their citizens. After the Revolutionary War, the nation
entered a period of unstable commercial and political conditions. If conditions
had been better, Alexander Hamilton and his supporters would have had little
success in their campaign for a new Constitution” (BIIP, 2004).
The preparation of the Constitution by the elite and rich is still the target of
harsh criticisms in the relevant literature. According to Zinn (2005: 106), the
Constitution, which illustrates the complexity of the American system, serves
the interests of wealthy elites, but at the same time, does enough for small
property owners, for middle-income mechanics and farmers, where it finds a
broad base of support. Hence, the elites, by a centralist and strong government,
could exert sovereignty over the society. Likewise, according to Beard (1935:
21) it was inevitable that the rich control the state in line with their interests, and
the majority of drafters of the Constitution had direct economic interests to
found a strong federal state. Beard wanted to confirm his thesis, and to this end,
examined economic backgrounds and political views of fifty-five people, who
gathered in Philadelphia to prepare the Constitution13. Beard stated that
manufacturers, for protectionist customs tariffs; land owners for protection, as
they invaded the Indian territories; slave owners, for federal security against
rebellions and fugitives, and holders of securities for taxation at national level in
order to be able to pay these, were participated in the making of the Constitution
(Beard, 1935: 20-24). As it is seen, criticisms concentrate on the consensus
reached on the Constitution, which Hamilton strongly advocated. That is to say,
it is asserted that the said consensus arose from the unity of interest, rather than
the Constitution’s ideational strength and its convincing nature.
13
According to Beard, Benjamin Franklin had a wealth of $150.000; Washington had vast lands; Madison had
plantations worked by slaves; Hamilton had connections with interest groups through his father, wife, and
brother (Beard, 1935: 21).
Alexander Hamilton and Hamiltonianism
59
Hamilton’s Understanding of Government
Hamilton does not have any work, where he directly reflected his views of
Public Administration. The Federalist Papers comprise Hamilton’s most of his
written works. Besides, the major sources for better understanding Hamilton’s
thoughts are the reports, which he submitted to the Convention and his personal
correspondence. Therefore, in order to interpret Hamilton’s thoughts in terms of
administrative science, as the primary source, the Federalist Papers and as the
secondary source, the Convention reports have been used in this study.
The analysis of the Federalist Papers as the primary source indicates that
Hamilton’s most important thoughts, which later have referred to as
Hamiltonianism, are based on a strong and centralist executive power. With an
aim to comprehend Hamilton’s idea of administration and his practices in public
administration as a bureaucrat and his relevant reports have been reviewed. To
this end, Hamilton’s economic reports and his views of the Army, which are
directly or indirectly relevant to public administration, have been considered
together with its implications today.
Strong Central Government: The Idea of Energetic President
According to Hamilton, the most important element of public administration
was the executive power, and the executive power was vested in the President.
The government needed a great power to carry out its duties; the executive
power could work consistent with the republic only when it was energetic
(Morris, 1957: 157-158). Hamilton, in the Federalist Papers, approached to the
executive power and the President based on identicalness. Hamilton used these
two words almost interchangeably, and often laid emphasis on the importance
of the President’s energy and powers. Hamilton concerning that his conception
of the Presidency, because of his emphases, could be associated with the British
Monarchs and tyranny, had to defend himself regarding this matter (Morris,
1957: 155). For example, Hamilton, in his Federalist Paper No. 67, said, “it is
impossible not to bestow the imputation of deliberate imposture and deception
upon the gross pretense of a resemblance between a king of Great Britain and a
magistrate of the character marked out for that of the President of the United
State” (Hamilton et al., 2004: 480-481). Besides, in his Federalist Paper No. 69,
he continued to argue for the powers of the President. He stated that the
President would be elected for four years by the people of the United States, and
would be re-eligible as long as the country’s confidence in him continued. Thus,
there was a total difference between the President and the King of Great Britain
possessing the crown as a patrimony descendible to his heirs forever, who was a
hereditary monarch. Even the Governor of New York was closer to the King in
terms of status. The reason was that the four-year Presidential term was not long
60
Review of Public Administration, Volume 7 Issue 4, December 2013, p.51-80.
enough to establish tyranny that would jeopardize the whole country. On the
other hand, there was more resemblance between the Governor of New York
and the King of Great Britain. The Governor, with his three-year term of office
in a single state and his right to infinite re-eligibility, could establish a more
dangerous patronage (Hamilton et al., 2004: 491-495). In most part of his
Federalist Paper No. 69, Hamilton compared the President and the King; he
defended the Constitution against the opposers, by making an analogy between
the Presidency and Monarchy.
According to Hamilton, the U.S. President is liable prosecution and
punishment upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or
misdemeanors before the law. However, the King of Great Britain was sacred
and inviolable in case of any kind of crime. The President had the power to
return a bill for reconsideration. Yet, the bill would become a law when
approved by two-thirds of the two branches of the legislature. On the other
hand, although rare in practice, the King of England had power to veto any law.
The President had a qualified negative, while in the Monarchy, there was an
absolute negative (Hamilton et al., 2004: 494-495). Hamilton continued with his
arguments by emphazising thatregarding war and foreign affairs,the President
likewise would need the approval of legislative body, whereas the King of
England had absolute powers on these matters. Hamilton claimed that the
assertions that an energetic, powerful President (Executive) was contrary to the
nature of a republican government were wrong.14 The energy in the Office of
President was a prominent quality of good administration. This energy was
essential for the protection of the society against foreign attacks; for the steady
administration of the laws; for the protection of property against oppressive
attempts that suspended the operation of laws, and for the security of freedoms
against the ambitious, factionist and anarchistic assaults. The ingredients of this
energy were the first unity to be followed by duration, an adequate provision for
its support; and competent powers, respectively. The President had to be safe in
the Republican sense; the ingredients of this safety were full dependence on the
people and full responsibility (Hamilton et al., 2004: 500-501).
Hamilton also strongly argued for the re-eligibility of strong President,
which he emphasized its importance for the Presidency. According to Hamilton,
exclusion would prevent a successful President from continuing to of useful
thins for the country, demotivation of the person holding the highest position of
the country, and the depriving the society of the advantage of benefiting from
the experience of the administration. Another ill effect of exclusion was that in
case the key staff in the President’s team was banished from the administration,
this would jeopardize the public safety in emergencies of the state (Hamilton et
In the Federalist Papers, Hamilton used the word “Executive” in the meaning of the President.
14
Alexander Hamilton and Hamiltonianism
61
al., 2004: 519-520). For Hamilton, prohibiting the re-election of the President is
an ill effect (Hamilton et al., 2004: 511). Hamilton argued for the President’s
power to veto as a measure that would restrict the arbitrariness of the legislative
body, and that would prevent the enactment of improper laws. According to
him, instead of an absolute, giving the President the qualified negative–that is,
requirement of qualified majority for the enactment of a law submitted to be
reviewed–would ensure more the legislative body’s more effective
representation of public conscience (Hamilton et al., 2004: 528-529).
Hamilton believed the President should have an absolute sovereignty over
public administration. For him, it was appropriate to grant, by the U.S.
Constitution, important powers to the President to determine public
administration bureaucracy. However, unless otherwise stated in the
Constitution, empowered the President of the United States to nominate, with
the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint ambassadors, ministers,
Chairman, and members of the Supreme Court and other bureaucrats.
According to Hamilton, the President, with this provision that required the
cooperation of the Senate, without influenced by prejudice, family ties, and
personal attachment or with popularity concerns, would appoint eligible persons
to the positions (Hamilton et al., 2004: 544-546).
According to Hamilton, the powers granted to the President by the
Constitution would make him powerful enough. These powers did not pose any
threat to the Republican sense or democracy, because he would be elected for a
specific period of time by those, who were elected by the people. In addition,
they might be tried, dismissed from the office, and they were subject to
common laws. Thus, they were accountable to the people and responsible
against laws (Hamilton et al., 2004: 548-550). Gabriel (1960:xii) stated that the
office of the President, as an office cunningly devised office to keep the
President responsible to the people, gave him powers that would enable him to
make bold action, and the office he would hold would be restricted so as to
prevent the President from emerging as a dictator.
Protectionist Trade, Plutocratic Economy, and the Army Prepared
for War
Aside from being a soldier, legist, and politician, Hamilton was a prominent
financier and economist. Thus, he was appointed as the Secretary of Treasury in
the first federal government. Hamilton was the one, who conformed the
American economy, which presented a messy and disorganized picture during
the federation era, to the federal order, and who established a centralist
economic structure. The important reports written by Hamilton while he was
serving as the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury led to the emergence of political
62
Review of Public Administration, Volume 7 Issue 4, December 2013, p.51-80.
and economic institutions and/or concepts such as Bank of America, public
loans, amortization fund, mint, industry improvement plans, regulatory
legislation, tariff policy, and taxation (Irwin, 2004: 802-803).
Hamilton’s report titled, “Report on Manufacturers” was a comprehensive
study that advocated the state’s support of manufacturing by strong arguments.
The Report began with the attack against the French physiocratic doctrine that
believed agriculture was the source of welfare (Hamilton 1791: 1-2). In the
Report, it was stated that manufacturing was no less valuable or productive than
agriculture, and its economic advantages, such as the increased productivity, the
division of labor and employment were highlighted. According to the report,
manufactures should be supported by government at the initial stage. Therefore,
government should guide and promote manufacturing. Moreover, such
government subsidies in other countries required the support of manufacturers
by government for competitive purposes (Irwin, 2004: 803-804). The report
argued that along with explicit support, the general course of the administration
(public administration) should be steered in such a way so as not to injure
manufacturers (Hamilton, 1791: 19).
The Report on Manufacturers aimed at especially increasing customs tariffs
in practice15. Hence, after Hamilton’s report, which aimed to increase tax
revenues through imports and to incentivize importers rejected in Congress,
most of the tariffs suggested in the report began to be put into practice.
According to Irwin (Irwin, 2004: 809), in fact, the tariffs proposed in the Report
supported industry, the wealth, the strength, the independence and its inwardoriented attitude. However, the main aim of the Report was the financing of
public debt via increased taxes. Consequently, conservatives who wanted to
avoid tax, shifted their support from the Federalists to the Jeffersonian
Republics in the 1790s (Irwin, 2004: 800-801).
The supportive attitude of Hamilton, who favored manufacturers for the
economy, towards the U.S. bourgeois of the period, which began to flourish
particularly in this sector became a constant subject of criticism. Hamilton was
blamed by behaving plutocratically in the management of economy. Zinn
(2005: 107-108) saysas Hamilton believed that government should cooperate
with the richest elements of society in order to strengthen itself, he proposed to
Congress a series of laws and those laws were enacted. Under this philosophy, a
Bank of the United States was established; a tariff was approved to help the
manufacturers; the full value of the war bonds, which were concentrated in a
15
In the report, incentives for manufacturers and limitations and taxes imposed on imports of manufactured
goods were planned in detail to the extent that taxes which were recommended o be imposed on products
such as steel, iron cocoa, and chocolate were set forth in figures (Hamilton, 1791: 20-22).
Alexander Hamilton and Hamiltonianism
63
small group of wealthy people, was paid. The said bond redemption was made
from taxes collected via the enacted tax laws (Zinn, 2005: 108).
With the federal bureaucracy, which was significantly expanded thanks to
the New Deal and Fair Deal16 initiatives in the late 1940s, scientists and
politicians often voiced their admiration for Hamilton, whom they saw as the
founder of American Public Administration and planning. It was written in an
article published in New York Times that Alexander Hamilton coined planned
economy 130 years before Stalin, and that planning became an element of the
U.S. administration with the publication of Hamilton’s Report on Manufacturers
(White, 2000: 59-60). White (2000: 60) referred to Hamilton’s management of
public debt and treasury, and said, “Alexander Hamilton is not only the greatest
genius of administration, but also one of the greatest administrators of all
times.” According to another interpretation about that period, the foundations of
the alliance between big capitalists and the government, which deepened and
developed during the Second World War, were laid down with the proposals of
Alexander Hamilton to Congress (Zinn, 2005: 441).
The influence of Hamilton’s views of the economy reflected in the neoliberal
approach, which gained prominence in the late 20th century as well. Reagan
quoted Hamilton’s words in Federalist 79, “a power over a man’s subsistence
amounts to a power over his will”, and said that welfare programs of
governments created a state of dependency, and dragged many people in
America’s inner regions to a new kind of slavery. Hamilton was once again got
into the debates due to the budget deficits increased during the Reagan era.
Hamilton’s discourse, “the debt is a national blessing, if it is not excessive”
came onto the agenda; even the Washington Post wrote, “the national debt has
finally, in Hamilton’s words, has become ’excessive‘” (Knott, 2002: 191).
Hamilton advocated that the army should be strong and and should always
be prepared for war. For him, military expenditures should be financed by
additional taxes, when necessary. Hamilton voiced his thoughtsin the Federalist
Papers as well. In this regard, Gabriel (1960:x) stated that there was need for
military force to respond to threats from outside; the federal government should
be equipped with powers that would make it possible to sustain and use this
The “New Deal” was the name given to the post-Great Depression policies aimed at increasing demand and
fostering economic growth through government spending. The “Fair Deal” was a post-war restructuring
program adopted immediately after, and as a continuation of this period. A central regulatory approach for
the rapid development of the capitalist system rejects totalitarianism. With this program, a central regulatory
approach that rejected totalitarianism for rapid development of the capitalist system was put forth. The
liberal system would be supported by the hands of the state; the society, whose level of living conditions
improved and whose income increased thanks to social reforms, would support economic growth with its
consumption expenditures. The primary objective of these policies, which intervened in employment,
minimum wage and the tax system, and which boosted state spending, was to expand the capitalist system
by creating a welfare state via the state incentives and support.
16
64
Review of Public Administration, Volume 7 Issue 4, December 2013, p.51-80.
military force. “Undeniably, management of foreign policy and tax collection
needed for war are among these powers” (Gabriel, 1960: x). Hamilton favored
that a government entrusted with these powers should be capable of mobilizing
the army at any time (Morris, 1957: 334). Hamilton supported peaceful relations
with the Indians. He advocated the idea of assimilating the Indians by means of
trade (Morris, 1957: 337). Thus, it can be concluded that Hamilton perceived
European countries as a threat.
With respect to war, Hamilton, because of his doctrine, “To be prepared for
war”, was blamed to be pro-war and offensive. According to Govan (1975: 475476), some American historians thought that Hamilton admired Julius Caesar17.
Govan (1975:475-476) supported this assertion as follows: “Julian Boyd, the
editor of Jefferson’s papers, also states that Hamilton considered Caesar to be
one of the greatest figures of history, and attributesHamilton’sinfluenceand
information the assertion by Louis-Guillaume Otto, the French chargé
d'affaires, that Washington, in all things, seemed “to wish to resemble Caesar.”
However, Govan (1975: 476-477), in his study, argued that such assertions were
not true. Govan stated that in Hamilton’s 21st number of the Federalist Paperand
in his letters to Washington, referred to Caesar as despot, and thought that such
despotism was a possible threat to confederation states that could not yet been
united (Govan, 1975: 477). Such arguments based on despotism, militarism and
strong army that still revolve around Hamilton’s name are not groundless. The
power and military sovereignty of the U.S. army, whose rationale is underlined
in Hamiltonianism, marked the 20th century.
Probably the most important influence of Hamilton in the U.S.
understanding of administration is the U.S. foreign policy based on the abovestated militarist power. Accordingly, Hamilton came onto the agenda during the
debates over the United States’ involvement in NATO. Although Jefferson and
Madison favored a legal control over the use of power, Hamilton’s belief in a
separate executive power once again became the subject of debate; those who
favored the involvement in NATO adopted Hamilton’s thought that the
President should have the power to respond to hostilities without consulting
Congress (Knott, 2002: 141-144). The militarist approach, which Hamilton
suggested for the U.S. foreign policy two hundred years ago, still prevails
today.
17
According to Govan, Dumas Malone, Julian Boyd, and Douglas Adair are among these writers.
Alexander Hamilton and Hamiltonianism
65
The Hamilton Influence in American Political Life and Public
Administration: The Hamiltonianism/(MadisonianismJeffersonianism18) Conflict
Although Hamilton and Madison collaborated in writing the Federalist Papers,
following the ratification of the Constitution, differences of opinion between
them became more apparent. In the new post-Constitution administration,
Madison, Jefferson, and Monroe joined the The Democratic-Republican Party,
whereas Hamilton, Washington and Adams chose the rival Federalist Party. The
differences of opinion mostly concentrated on the power of federal government
and the groups, whose interests would be protected. Over time, these ideas have
been identified with the names of the pioneers of the opinions as
HamiltonianismandJeffersonianism/Madisonianism.
BIIP
(2011:26-27)
interprets this divergence as follows:
“The Federalists, led by Washington, Adams, and Alexander Hamilton,
generally represented trade and manufacturing interests. They feared anarchy
and believed in a strong central government that could set national economic
policies and maintain order. They had the mostsupport in the North.
Republicans, led by Jefferson, generally represented agricultural interests. They
opposed a strongcentral government and believed in states’ rights and the selfsufficiency of farmers. They had the most support in the South”.
Gabriel (1960: 3-4) approaches to the conflict between Hamilton and
Jefferson in terms of their personal qualifications:
“Hamilton served in the army as aide de camp to George Washington before
working as lawyer. Therefore, his essays never lack order, system and energy.
He is a conservative man in terms of his basic attitude and the goals he wants to
achieve. But, he is quite radical in the tools he used, and for instance, in
discernment debates in his articles: He is ready to follow the quickest way to
achieve his goal. It is possible to perceive his habit of order that comes from his
military background, in his willingless to organize the state power. He is quite
the opposite of Jefferson. Jefferson attempted to control the state power rather
than organizing it.”
As it is seen, Hamilton is often blamed by favoring the aristocrat and the rich
and by advocating the sovereignty of a more elitist administration more than
any other founding father of the United States. According to Zinn (2005: 102),
Hamilton, who was one of the most forceful and smart leaders of the new
aristocracy that emerged in the United States after the British sovereignty, was
18
While Jeffersonianism is often used to name the distinction, where differences in political attitudes are
accentuated, Madisonianism is opposed to Hamiltonianism particularly in the attitudes regarding the power
of central authority. Meanwhile, Jeffersonianism and Madisonianism can be interchangeably used. The said
term confusion makes the review of the relevant literature difficult.
66
Review of Public Administration, Volume 7 Issue 4, December 2013, p.51-80.
close to aristocracy and plutocracy. The author describes the Hamiltonian
viewas follows: “The rich and well-horn should be given a distinct permanent
share in the government. The people are turbulent and changing; a democratic
assembly who annually revolve in the mass of the people cannot steadily pursue
the public good” (Zinn, 2005: 102). According to Gabriel (1960: xi), “It is not
possible not to sense that Hamilton, from time to time, tended to consider the
people same with masses, to underestimate them and to distrust the common
sense of the people”. Despite these severe accusations, there are many Hamilton
admirers among the U.S. academicians. Even a school defending Hamilton’s
thoughts was founded.19According to this school, the Hamiltonianism is not
elitist or anti-democratic; but, it is concerned about the problematic structure of
democracy (Knott, 2002: 199).
Madison, who later separated paths with Hamilton, criticized Hamilton on
every occasion regarding extremely strong central government, which he
regarded as anti-democratic. Madison, in his letter to his friend, said about the
term, “General Werfare” mentioned in Hamilton’s famous Report on
Manufacturers’ that “the Federal Government was limited to specific powers.
Moreover, this restriction was brought by the greatest champion of views for
enhancing the powers granted to the government”. The champion implied here
is undoubtedly Hamilton (Irwin, 2004: 802). Madison’s main difference of
opinion clearly manifests itself in this satire.
It is seen that Hamilton’s influence on American politicians has begun to
increase in the 20th century. This influence becomes prominent especially in the
Republican governments. The 29th President of the United States Warren G.
Harding and his predecessor, the 30th President of the United States Calvin
Coolidge regarded Hamilton as one of the greatest founders of the United States
(Knott, 2002: 104). President Harding, in his letter to Vandenberg, who was the
publisher of books“The Greatest American, Alexander Hamilton” and“If
Hamilton Were Here Today”, expressed his views about Hamilton as follows:
“No man's life ever gave me greater inspiration than Hamilton’s no man's life
ever made greater contribution to the founding and the functioning of
constitutional America”. The President, in one of his addresses in 1904,
glorified the importance of Hamilton for the United States: “The greatest genius
of the Republic Alexander Hamilton was with us at the times when we needed
him most. If Hamilton did not exist, there would not be an American Republic
that surprises the world with what it has today and its development would not
exist either”. The President Harding maintained that Hamilton’s nationalism
19
An important group of social scientists, who considered Hamilton a leading revisionist, was gathered under
the roof of militarist, elitist and new conservative Straussianism School, which was called after Leo Strauss.
According to Strauss, Hamilton was a high-ranking statesman (Knott, 2002: 199).
Alexander Hamilton and Hamiltonianism
67
constituted the foundations ofthe present Republican Party. He also said that
Hamilton’s nationalism reinforced the existing Union and laid the foundations
of the existing Federal government (Knott, 2002: 104).
The Jefferson-Hamilton conflict continued to remain on the agenda until
mid-20th century. The President Truman, who was the architect of the U.S. Cold
War policies, considered Thomas Jefferson “as the champion of the forgotten
man”. However, he often criticized Alexander Hamilton’s elitism both publicly
and privately (Knott, 2002: 144-150). According to Truman, Hamilton
sometimes tended to behave on the autocratic side of administration, and
admired the British ruling classes. Truman believed that Jefferson made the
greatest contribution to the U.S. Administrative system. Jackson and Jefferson’s
populism and pro-people attitude was much more valuable than Hamilton’s
elitist approach. According to Truman, Jefferson challenged the Federalists,
who, he believed, were suffocating the content of true democracy of the New
Republic, and Jackson conducted a gradual revolution against reactionary forces
within federal government (Knott, 2002: 144-155). Truman, in one of his
speeches during his presidential campaign in 1948, said that Hamilton frankly
affirmed his belief that government should be controlled by the rich and nobles.
According to him, Hamilton believed that government should be aristocratic,
and that it should operate chiefly in the interest of wealth and privilege. Truman
argued that Hamilton’s counterpart in 1948 was the Republican Party. Truman,
by his words, “The followers of Alexander Hamilton also banded themselves
together as a political party. This, the party of conservatism, the party of rule by
the privileged few, has its counterpart in our national life today”, implied the
Republican Party (Knott, 2002: 142).
Quite paradoxically, it is observed Truman, who constantly criticized
Hamilton and often voiced his Jeffersonianism, followed a Hamiltonian path in
international policies. The Hamiltonianism strongly influenced the Truman
Doctrine and practice, which was the basis of the Cold War policies of the
United States. Hamilton’s belief that the executive authority should exercise its
power separately contradicts with Jefferson and Madison’s view of controlling
the exercise of the executive power. In the Cold War Era, conservatives20 were
distressed by the Truman era’s inclination to be internationally active and by a
United States involved in NATO. That group of conservatives were disturbed
by the idea that the President could respond to a likely Soviet attack to NATO
allies without waiting for Congress’ declaration of war (Knott, 2002: 141-155).
It can be said in view of this example that the Jefferson-Hamilton conflict was
fake at least in terms of macro policies of the state, and that Hamilton is the
20
Here, it is understood that persons, who fall into the definition of conservative, are those, who advocate the
adoption of policies internationally isolated from the world.
68
Review of Public Administration, Volume 7 Issue 4, December 2013, p.51-80.
architect of the U.S. policies that have risen above his idea of strong army
especially after World War.
With the Reagan-era policies, even liberals, who criticized Hamilton of
being plutocrat, were obliged to review their stance because of Hamilton’s
support of the conception of national power (Knott, 2002: 188). Conservative
circles, chiefly neoconservatives, who feared the erosion of the executive power
that began with President Nixon and deepened under Jimmy Carter, relied upon
Hamilton’s thesis of strong presidency. Accordingly, strong office of presidency
should be capable of acting within the principles of emergency response and
secrecy without the restrictions of Congress, because a strong system of
presidency is vital for a United States that wants to win Cold War (Knott, 2002:
188-189).
It is seen that the Jefferson supporters sharply criticized Hamilton even over
his personal life. According to Cooke (1967: 107), who is closer to the
Jeffersonian views, “Hamilton, by dueling Burr, in fact, committed suicide;
thus, he chose to abandon his family, just as his father had. The author argued
that many issues related to the federalist era are suppressed; during the crisis
with France in the late 1790s, Hamilton dreamed of Napoleonic dreams of
invasion (Cooke, 1967: 107). While Hamilton supported the expansion of the
United States towards Louisiana and Florida, and advocated that lands of
Louisiana could only be acquired by war, Jefferson managed to purchase
Louisiana through diplomatic channels. This situation, while showing
Jefferson’s peaceful side, Hamilton was regarded as an emerging imperialist,
the would-be Napoleon of the New World (Cooke, 1967: 77). Cooke (1967: 78)
compared Jefferson and Hamilton as follows: “Although Hamilton seemed to
sublimate tradition, he is the most radical of the founders, and is the symbol of
belief in modernism. On the other hand, Jefferson is the prototype of American
conservative: He was a Virginian aristocrat and a status quoist with an
idealized vision of an agricultural America”.
When all these Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian views are considered as a
whole, these tendencies, which are called Jeffersonianism and Hamiltonianism,
and which has led to a dichotomy in the U.S. political life and public
administration, differ in the following basic aspects:
1- Hamilton advocated federal nationalism, whereas Jefferson favored a
populist republic.
2- Hamilton argued for a powerful executive body, which autonomously
exercised its power of supervision. Jefferson advocated that a strict legal
supervision should be exercised on the power of the executive body.
3- Hamilton favored an autocratic elitism for the ruling class. Jefferson took
a populist and pro-people stance.
Alexander Hamilton and Hamiltonianism
69
4- While Hamilton prioritized the interests of wealthy and privileged class,
Jefferson defended the interests and the rights of the middle class as well.
5- Hamilton advocated that economy should be under full control of central
government, whereas Jefferson and Madison were opposed to the idea of the
centralization of economy, even to the idea of a national bank.21
6- Hamilton favored an aggressive and pro-war stance in foreign affairs.
Jefferson advocated more passive and pro-peace policies.
7- Hamilton was pro-modernist and radical. Jefferson was a stricter
conservative, and was a landowner aristocrat. Thus, while Hamilton had an
understanding of economy that gave priority to trade and industry, Jefferson
adopted a pro-agriculture status quoist approach.
Hamilton and the Discipline of Public Administration
According to Bowman (1956: 40-41), Hamilton was monarchist in in
philosophy and mercantilist in practice. He was the admirer of the Hobbesian22
system of the theory of the 18th century British Constitution and its conveyor to
the United States. Some think that Hamilton’s argument for strong President is
close to Hobbes, who advocated controversial boundaries, natural law and
rational state, but also was in favor of a monarchic, powerful state. An example,
which is often given is the declaration of independence by Washington in the
1793 British-French War. According to the Constitution, the power of declaring
dependence, which is in some sense the opposite of the power of declaring war
entrusted with the Congress, should alse granted to the Congress. The exercise
of this power solely by the President is a Hamiltonian attitude (Bowman, 1956:
24). According to the author, the idea of providing the President with powers
above the legislature stemmed from Hamilton’s influence ideational and
personal influence (Bowman, 1956: 24). On the other hand, Rosano (2003:67)
says Hamilton was closer to Hobbes regarding only rational state and natural
law. For Rosano, in fact, Hamilton preferred Locke’s participatory
administrative approach based on the separation of powers to absolute
monarchy. Despite these different interpretations, it can be said that Hamilton’s
idea of strong central executive body stands closer to monarchy on the spectrum
ranging from monarchy to popular democracy. The conflict, which began with
Jefferson and Madison’s stance closer to democracy favoring the restriction of
the powers of the executive that was almost identified with the President’s
personality, and laying more emphasis on other powers, has been discussed in
For difference of opinion on National Bank, see: Anıl Nair, David Ahlstrom, (2008), ‘Balancing
Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian Contradictions Within Organizations’, Journal of Management Inquiry, 20,
No.10:8,s.1-13.
22
The Hobbesian system advocates an absolutist, strong and competent state.
21
70
Review of Public Administration, Volume 7 Issue 4, December 2013, p.51-80.
the previous part. In this part, the implications of this conflict and particularly
those of Hamiltonianism in the mainstream thoughts in the U.S. public
administration discipline will be discussed.
The Founding Era: The Birth of Bureaucracy and Commercial
Republic
According to Green (2002: 542), Hamilton, who is considered by historians and
biographers to be the administrative genius of the U.S. Founding Era, “In just
10 years Hamilton put in place an administrative infrastructure that set the
young nation on course for becoming an opulent commercial republic.” Indeed,
Hamilton carried his thoughts on constitutional philosophy, economy, trade,
army, and bureaucracy to the U.S. public administration at that time.
As stated in the previous parts, different approaches in American
administrative science originate from one of the two traditions that often
contradict with each other. Those from Hamiltonian tradition are in pursuit of
an energetic state equipped with a strong administrative device Alexander
Hamilton had advocated. In Hamiltonian approach, the matter of administration
is effective achievement of publicly determined objectives. On the other hand,
the Madisonian/Jeffersonian model cautiously approaches the idea of a
government with too much elbowroom. The main idea of this approach is the
thesis that “concentration of executive power is worrisome, and the competition
of political interests mitigates the risk of bureaucracy’s threat to freedom”
(Kettl, 1993: 55-56). On the other hand, under his own presidency, Jefferson,
who was asserted to adopt the opinion opposite to that of Hamiltonian,
continued his way by strengthening bureaucracy, which he jointly established
with Hamilton.
It can be said that Hamilton’s political, economic, and administrative
thoughts synthesized European theorists such as David Hume, Malachi
Postletwayt, Jacques Neckar, Sir James Steuart, Vattel Jean Baptist Colbert, and
Adam Smith (Green, 2002: 543-544). Hamilton, who adapted many of their
ideas to the American Public Administration, did not also fail to criticize them.
He criticized Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” theory, and argued that the market
should be under the control of the state (Green, 2002: 544). Hamilton’s
protective attitudes towards manufacturing and trade, and his notion of strong
state are the main grounds for his relevant criticism.
His constitutional opinions that a strong national government would be a
more effective protector of rights and more stimulating for prosperity than the
states are still a “force majeure23”in the politics of American federalism (Green,
23
This term is used in the meaning of “the determining force”..
Alexander Hamilton and Hamiltonianism
71
2002: 544-547). Hamilton, believing that American people had a strong
commercial bent, devoted himself to the development of a commercial republic
as exemplified in the new Constitution. Hamilton, who followed a liberal line,
believed that the form of republicanism would be evolved from preoccupation
with military and religious glory to commerce and agriculture, which were
spiritually lower but more peaceful objectives (Green, 2002: 547-550).
The central banking model developed by Hamilton is still important, and
constituted the basis of Canada Central Bank and the U.S. Federal Reserve
System. Hamilton created a synthesis suitable for the American regime, which
can also be called political economy. The political-economic cast, which
emerged with this synthesis, and which today reflects in institutions, still
continues, and prevails in general administrative thought and practice.
According to an assertive interpretation of this situation, “The American public
administration flows from and contributes to the commercial character of the
regime” (Green, 2002: 544).
The Hamilton Influence in Contemporary Public Administration
American public administration has theoretically developed with machine
production and Fordism, and the influence of Hamiltonian vision in the
discipline increasingly continued in the 20th century. This influence manifested
itself in two areas. The need for strong professional army, as Hamilton
suggested, which arose with the American-Spanish War (1898) accelerated the
rise of Hamiltonianism (Kettl, 1993: 55-56). It is not surprising that the United
States, which joined two big World Wars, and which pursued an imperialist
foreign policy particularly in the post-Cold War period, favored Hamilton’s
doctrine of an army prepared for war above all kinds of philosophies. The
second influence was experienced by the emergence of the need for a centralist
and normative bureaucracy with Wilson and Taylorism. According to Uveges,
growing urbanization in the United State sowing to increased in- and outmigration towards the end of the 19th century, increased industrialization in
cities, corruption in public administration and bureaucracy, and most
importantly, the need for the management of over-developed capitalism in a
centralized and normative manner brought Hamiltonianism to the forefront
(1982: 14-15).24
The reflection of these developments and scientific management approach
manifested itself in the form of strong, steady, and aggressive governments and
a strong bureaucracy. Although the search for efficiency that intensified after
the 1950s downsized the state, it did not neutralize bureaucracy. These searches
24
According to Uveges (1982: 14-15), a Hamiltonianism style, where classical Hamiltonianism was expressed
in scientific principles, became influential in the 20th century public administration discipline, which has
started with the influence of Wilson and Taylor, between two World Wars.
72
Review of Public Administration, Volume 7 Issue 4, December 2013, p.51-80.
chose “effectiveness and efficiency” as the economic objectives that would
downsize bureaucracy, while, at the same time, would increase its control and
power. A study, which interprets the relationship of Marshall Dimock’s views
of public administration,25 who was one the theorists of that period, with the
Hamiltonian vision, mentions Dimock’s view that “public administration’s
legislative, executive functions and its other functions are in an integration,
albeit their separate identities” (Green, 1994: 2067). Dimock’s holistic approach
also reflects Hamilton’s view that public administration incorporates all three
powers of the state, and that the executive body, in its details, integrates them to
one another (Green, 1994: 2065). Dimock maintained that judgment, decisionmaking and strategy needed for administrative affairs should be centralized
which are inherently political, and that public administrator should have full
power of decision-making that will allow him to preserve his energy. These
views of Dimock are, in essence, parallel to Hamilton’s vision of an energetic
executive (Green, 1994: 2067). Dimock argued for strongly managed, vigorous,
i.e., innovative, risk-taking, changing and competitive public institutions, and
advocated that public institutions should be legally framed so as to be
governable and accountable, and they should be equipped with a flexible power
within that frame (Green, 1994: 2067).
Dimock’s Hamiltonian vision of bureaucracy and public administration
reflected in new approaches in the discipline that emerged after the New Deal
too. For example, NPM (New Public management) is an efficiency-oriented that
views citizens as customers. Frederickson, who is one of the founders of the
NPM, points to a new bureaucracy and a strong government for NPM
(Ciğeroğlu, 2009:8). Frederickson and Kevin (2003:59-60), in their book, which
they analyzed the philosophy of Public Administration in the United States,
state that their understanding is closer to the Hamiltonian vision rather than the
Madisonian view, and that the NPM theory is about Hamiltonianism, and other
leadership-oriented approaches. The Hamiltonian vision adopted by
Frederickson is clearly reflected in the author’s book on the philosophy of
public administration, Sprit of Public Administration. Frederickson (1997:125)
states that in the New Public Management, three particularly important
concepts26 prevail. Among these, as for leadership, modern emphasis is placed
on “strong, heroic, and muscular” leaders, rather than competent bureaucrats.
This definition exactly overlaps with Hamilton’s description of strong
President.
Marshall Dimock played an important role in the establishment of TODAİE and the development of the
public administration discipline in Turkey. For detailed information about Marshal Dimock’s studies in
Turkey, see: Mıhçıoğlu, Cemalettin, (1968), Türkiye Çağdaş Kamu Yönetimi Öğretiminin Başlangıç Yılları,
SBF Yayınları, Ankara.
26
The other two concepts are contracting out and governance.
25
Alexander Hamilton and Hamiltonianism
73
As post-modern approaches, where in the U.S. public administration, the
state or bureaucracy is excluded more, are based on a participatory and more
democratic philosophy, are labeled as Madisonian (Sturgis, 1994). For example,
multi-actor governance approaches that trivialize the role of the state are more
Madisonian theories. The Public Choice Theory as a model, which takes its
origin from Madisonianism, is built on the Madisonian philosophy (Grofman
and Witmann, 1989:7-8). Thus, Frederikson, with a Hamiltonian vision, stands
aloof from governance as it will emty the content of the state device.
Governance requires strong political and administrative institutions (Ciğeroğlu,
2009:15). The reason is that these institutions are of vital importance in the
event the market fails. It can be asserted that this view of Frederickson is in
conformity with the Austrian School’s understanding of liberalism, under which
regulatory/supervisory state monitors the functioning of the market, and that in
the Austrian School, a secret Hamiltonian centralism is behind the state’s small
role.
Conclusion
The influences of the U.S. Founding Era continue to exist in the political,
economic, and legal life of today’s United States. Some think that American
science of public administration has promptly emerged in the 20th century.
However, the birth of American Public Administration took place during the
founding era, when American state tradition had begun, but whose effects are
overlooked by researchers. That period has strong influence in the theories and
practices of today’s American Public Administration.
There are two main movements in the U.S. Public administration discipline,
which are said to be contrary to one another that have lasted from the founding
era up to the present. Hamiltonianism, which refers to the political ideas and
principles associated with Alexander Hamilton, represents the understanding of
strong army, centralized-control economy and strong bureaucracy.
Jeffersonianism/Madisonianism advocates an understanding of administration,
where the the role of state is less, and where a democratic and popular
administration prevails rather than central bureaucracy.
In fact, the theoretical differences that are argued to exist between the
approaches of Jefferson/Madison and Hamilton to administration are not very
obvious and deep in practice. It is seen that both visions have been represented
in the U.S. Governments throughout the 20th century. However, the United
States does not compromise Hamilton’s idea of strong central government and
strong President, whichever one of the two parties, which more or less represent
these two visions, comes to power. Thus, it can be said that this split that
stemmed from establishing the balance among the states and strengthening the
74
Review of Public Administration, Volume 7 Issue 4, December 2013, p.51-80.
federation during the founding era is, for today, seems artificial like football
team fanship.
In American public administration theories, some fluctuations in the
mainstream concerning reducing the role of the state and sharing the
government with other actors of the administration can be perceived in contrast
to Hamilton’s idea of strong bureaucracy and centralist approach. The only
difference here is the delegation of social, but cashable, or revenue-yielding
services of public administration to the private sector. In brief, the role of
controlling the market, which Hayek tailored for the state in public
administration, has been converted into Hamilton’s strong central
administration. Today, in the U.S. public administration, there are many
regulatory agencies that carry out the regulatory, supervisory and control
functions, which are asserted to serve independent from politics.
As Fişek (1971: 115) said, “In America, contrary to England, feudalism,
from the very beginning, remained an ‘unknown’ entity and society started off
from a purely bourgeois basis”. The U.S. Constitution, despite its democratic
appearance, has been designed so as to observe the interests of this bourgeois.
As wealthy people strictly adhered to their property, who were far from
representing all classes of the society, the founding fathers such as Hamilton,
Jefferson, and Madison constructed the U.S. public administration to protect
this purely bourgeoisie basis. In conclusion, it can be asserted that whatever the
course of developments in the U.S. public administration discipline, the need
for the administrative device of capitalism, powerfulness of which was coded by
Hamilton, will persist, and the loss of power in administration or bureaucracy
will remain limited to the sharing of the field with economic benefits, which is
controlled by the administration, with the market.
References
UBPB[UlusalBilgiProgramlarıBürosu/ ABD DışİşleriBakanlığı], “Kısa ABD
Tarihi”,http://turkish.turkey.usembassy.gov/media/pdf/abd_kisa_tarih.pdf
(15.12.2011).
Beard, Charles, (1935), An Economic Interpretation of Constitution of United States,
Macmillan, New York.
Bowman, Albert H., (1956), Jefferson, Hamilton and American Foreign Policy ,
Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 71, No. 1 (Mar., 1956), pp. 18-41, s:40-41.
Ciğeroğlu, Mısra (2009), “H. George Frederickson ve Kamu Yönetimi Disiplinindeki
Yeri”, YBAD Lisansüstü Seminer Çalışmaları, No: 5, http:// yonetimbilimi politics.
ankara.edu.tr /mcigeroglu.pdf(13.01.2012), s.8.
Cooke, Jacob E. (1967), Alexander Hamilton: A Profile, Hill and Wang, New York.
Çiner, Can Umut, (2009), “Fransız Yönetim Düşüncesinin Gelişimi: Polis Biliminden
Örgüt Bilimine”, AmmeİdaresiDergisi, Cilt 42, Sayı 1, s.1-22.
Alexander Hamilton and Hamiltonianism
75
Fişek, Kurthan, (1971), “Genesis of Bureucracy in England ant the US of America”,
SBFDergisi, C. 26, S. 1, s. 115.
Frederickson, George H. (1997), The Spirit of Public Administration, Josey Bass
Publishers, San Fransisco.
Frederickson, George H., Smith Kevin B., (2003), The Public Administration Theory
Primer, Westview Press, Boulder.
Gabriel, Ralph H., (1960), Hamilton, Madison and Jay On the Constitution- Selections
From the Federalist Papers, New York: The Liberal Arts Press, Çev: Soysal,
Mümtaz, (1962), Hamilton, Madison ve Jay- Anayasa Üzerine Düşünceler:
Federalistlerin Makalelerinden Seçmeler, YenilikBasımevi, İstanbul.
Govan, Thomas P., (1975), “Alexander Hamilton and Julius Caesar: A Note on the Use
of Historical Evidence”, William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, Vol. 32, p. 475480.
Green, Richard T., (1994), Static Law and Dynamic Administration: MarshallDimock’s
Assault on the Legal Profession, International Journal of Public Administration,V.
17, 11, p. 2055-2084.
Green, Richard T., (2002), “Alexander Hamilton: Founder of the American Public
Administration”, Administration & Society, November 34: 541-562, 542.
Grofman, Bernard, Witmann, Donald, (1989), The Federalist Papers and the New
Institutionalism, Agathon Press, New York.
Güler, BirgülAyman, (2006), Yönetim Düşünü İçin Araştırma Alanını Belirlemek,
Çalışma Notu, Mart 2005- Ocak 2006.
Hamilton Alexander, (5 Aralık 1791,Temsilciler Meclisi),” Report on Manufacturers”,
http://www.constitution.org/ah/rpt_manufactures.pdf, (21.02.2012)
Hamilton, Alexander, James Madison, John Jay (2004), The Federalist Papers, Cynthia
Brantley Johnson (ed.), Pocket Books, New York.
Irwin, Douglas A., (2004), “The Aftermath of ‘Report on Manufacturers’”, The Journal
of Economic History, Vol.64, No.3, p. 800-821.
Kettl, Donald F., (1993), Sharing Power: Public Governance and Private Markets,
Washington, Brookings Institution, Frederickson, H. George (1997), The Spirit of
Public Administration, San Fransisco, The Jossey Bass Publishers, p.55-56.
Knott, Stephen F., (2002), Alexander Hamilton and the Persistence of Myth, University
Press of Kansas, Lawrence.
Maggs, Gregory E., (2007), “A Concise Guide to the Federalist Papers as a Source of
the Original Meaning of the United States Constitution”, Boston University Law
Review, 87, p.801-842.
Martin, Daniel W., (1987), “Déjà Vu: French Antecedents of American Public
Administration”, Public Administration Review, July-August 1987, p. 297-303.
Morris, Richard B., (1957), The Basic Ideas of Alexander Hamilton, New York: Pocket
Books.
76
Review of Public Administration, Volume 7 Issue 4, December 2013, p.51-80.
Nair, Anıl, Ahlstrom, David, (2008), ”Balancing Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian
Contradictions Within Organizations”, Journal of Management Inquiry, c.20,
No.10:8, p.1-13.
Rosano, Michael J., (2003), “Liberty, Philantrophy and Power in Alexander Hamilton’s
Conception of Human Nature”, American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 47,
No:1, p. 61-74.
Sturgis, Amy, H., (1994), “The Rise, Decline, and Reemergence of Classical
Liberalism”, The LockeSmith Institute, http://www.belmont. edu/lockesmith/
liberalism _essay/ the_reemergence.html (17.01.2012).
Uveges, Joseph A., (1982), Public Administration- History and Theory in
Contemporary Perspective, New York: Marcel Dekker Inc.
Uluslararası Bilgi Programları Bürosu, (A.B.D.) (2004), Ed. Jack W., Amerika
Hakkında-Açıklamalı Amerika Birleşik Devletleri Anayasası, worldbookinc., Web:
turkish.turkey.usembassy. gov/media/pdf/abd-anayasasi.pdf adresinden 20.12.2011.
White, Richard D.,(2000), "Political Economy and Statesmanship: Smith, Hamilton, and
the Foundation of the Commercial Republic" Public Administration Review, 60.
Zinn, Howard, (2005), Amerika Birleşik Devletleri Halklarının Tarihi, İmgeKitabevi,
Ankara.
Alexander Hamilton and Hamiltonianism
77
ANNEX 1. Biography of Alexander Hamilton
Alexander Hamilton was born in the Caribbean Leeward Islands, which was a
British colony on 11 January 1757. Hamilton, who worked for a trading
company in his childhood, moved to Boston in 1772 through the help of wealth
men, who recognized his genius. He studied law in King’s College, which would
later be renamed Columbia University. Following his education, he joined the
army, and in 1776, Hamilton was commissioned a captain, and was given
command of an artillery company. One year later, he was promoted to the rank
of lieutenant colonel, and soon became the senior aide to General Washington.
In 1780, he married Elizabeth Schuyler, and then, resigned his position as the
senior aide. The following year, he was appointed as commander of New York
and Connecticut light infantry battalion, was sent to Virginia.
Five months after being appointed to the army for the second, Hamilton
resigned his commission. In 1782, he was appointed as Continental receiver of
taxes for the state of New York, and the same year, he was elected as a delegate
for the state of New York to the National Congress. In 1783, Hamilton resigned
from the Continental Congress due to differences of opinion in the
Confederation Congress, and opened a law office in New York. However, in
1786, with the support of Washington, he attended to the Congress held in
Annapolis as the delegate for New York. Hamilton, who also attended to the
Second Congress, where the Constitution was prepared, was appointed as the
Secretary of Treasury to the first government founded following the completion
of the ratification process of the Constitution, which he supported by his
Federalist essays. Hamilton returned to the army after his duty in the first
government. In 1800, he resigned from the army, and continued to live in New
York. He continued to engage in politics, albeit not actively, and played major
role in the failure of Adam government with his sharp criticism. On 12 July
1804, he died at the end of his duel with Aaron Burr, whom he made enemy of
him because of his criticisms.
Hamilton’s Published Works Apart from Federalist Papers:
First Report on the Public Credit: Submitted to the House of Representatives on
14 January 1790.
Bill of Operations of the Act Laying Duties on Imports: Submitted to the
House of Representatives on 23 April 1790.
Second Report on Public Credit: “Report on a National Bank”: Submitted to
the House of Representatives on 14 December 1790
Report on the Establishment of a Mint: Submitted to the House of
Representatives on 28 January 1791.
78
Review of Public Administration, Volume 7 Issue 4, December 2013, p.51-80.
Report on Manufactures: submitted to the House of Representatives on 5
December 1791.
ANNEX 2. The Federalist Papers by Date, Title, and Number
Federalist Number (*)
M'lean Newspaper
Edition
Edition
Date
October 27,
1787
November
14,1787
Federalist Title
General Introduction
1
-
6
-
7
-
8
-
9
-
11
-
12
-
November
24,1787
November 27,
1787
13
-
November 28,
1787
Advantage of the Union in Respect to Economy in Government
15
-
December 1,
1787
The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the
Union
16
-
December 4,
1787
The Same Subject Continued: The Insufficiency of the Present
Confederation to Preserve the Union
17
-
The Same Subject Continued: The Insufficiency of the Present
Confederation to Preserve the Union
21
-
December 5,
1787
December 12,
1787
22
-
December 14,
1787
The Same Subject Continued: Other Defects of the Present
Confederation
23
-
December 18,
1787
The Necessity of a Government as Energetic as the One
Proposed to the Preservation of the Union
24
-
December 19,
1787
The Powers Necessary to the Common Defense Further
Considered
25
-
The Same Subject Continued: The Powers Necessary to the
Common Defense Further Considered
26
-
December 21,
1787
December 22,
1787
-
December 25,
1787
The Same Subject Continued: The Idea of Restraining the
Legislative Authority in Regard to the Common Defense
Considered
-
December 26,
1787
The Same Subject Continued: The Idea of Restraining the
Legislative Authority in Regard to the Common Defense
Considered
27
28
November
15,/1787
November 20,
1787
November 21,
1787
Concerning Dangers from Dissensions Between the States
The Same Subject Continued: Concerning Dangers from
Dissensions Between the States
The Consequences of Hostilities Between the States
The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and
Insurrection
The Utility of the Union in Respect to Commercial Relations
and a Navy
The Utility of the Union in Respect to Revenue
Other Defects of the Present Confederation
The Idea of Restraining the Legislative Authority in Regard to
the Common Defense Considered
Alexander Hamilton and Hamiltonianism
79
30
29
December 28,
1787
Concerning the General Power of Taxation
31
30
January 1,
1788
The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the General Power of
Taxation
32-33
31
January 2,
1788
The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the General Power of
Taxation
34
32
January 5,
1788
The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the General Power of
Taxation
35
33
January 5,
1788
The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the General Power of
Taxation
36
34
The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the General Power of
Taxation
29
35
January 8,
1788
January 9,
1788
59
58
February 22,
1788
Concerning the Power of Congress to Regulate the Election of
Members
60
59
February 23,
1788
The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the Power of
Congress to Regulate the Election of Members
61
60
February 26,
1788
65
64
66
65
67
66
68
67
69
68
70
69
71
70
March 8, 1788
March 11,
1788
March 12,
1788
March 14,
1788
March 15,
1788
March 18,
1788
72
71
March 19,
1788
The Same Subject Continued, and Re-Eligibility of the Executive
Considered
73
72
74
73
The Provision For The Support of the Executive, and the Veto
Power
The Command of the Military and Naval Forces, and the
Pardoning Power of the Executive
75
74
March 21,
1788
March 25,
1788
March 26,
1788
76
75
April 1, 1788
The Appointing Power of the Executive
77
76
April 2, 1788
The Appointing Power Continued and Other Powers of the
Executive Considered
Concerning the Militia
The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the Power of
Congress to Regulate the Election of Members
The Powers of the Senate (Continued Jay’s Federalist Paper
March 7, 1788 No. 64)
Objections to the Power of the Senate to Set as a Court for
Impeachments Further Considered
The Executive Department
The Mode of Electing the President
The Real Character of the Executive
The Executive Department Further Considered
The Duration in Office of the Executive
The Treaty Making Power of the Executive
78
(**)
The Judiciary Department
79
(**)
The Judiciary Continued
80
Review of Public Administration, Volume 7 Issue 4, December 2013, p.51-80.
80
(**)
The Powers of the Judiciary
81
(**)
The Judiciary Continued, and the Distribution of the Judicial
Authority
82
(**)
The Judiciary Continued
83
(**)
The Judiciary Continued in Relation to Trial by Jury
84
(**)
Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the
Constitution Consi dered and Answered
85
(**)
Concluding Remarks
Source: Compiled bused on Maggs, Gregory E. (2007) p. 842-847.
(*) At that time, the Federalist Papers were published in four different Newyork newspapers. In the
M’Lean editon, numbering of essays is different. In this table, M’Lean version has been used.
(**) These papers are of uncertain date, since they are unpublished in newspapers.