Search results

Edmund Burke, the 18th century Irish orator said … ‘those who propose change should work hard to persuade a rational man that innovations or reforms would not end in damage or absurdity’.

This paper addresses the status of the concept of tradition in social theory. Tradition, precisely defined, should be one of the ways sociologists understand the logic of social action, group identity, and collective memory (Coser 1992; Connerton 1989). To date, however, most social scientists are either dismissive or indiscriminate in their use of the notion. Those who disapprove of the concept tend to “treat tradition as a residual category”’ (Shils 1981 p. 8) or they see it as a type of false consciousness susceptible to manipulation by dominant elites (Hobsbawm 1983). Scholars who embrace tradition, such as Edward Shils, often do so by broadening the concept into something indistinguishable from any cultural inheritance. A nuanced ideal‐type theory is put forth here to enable us to identify and research the particular logic of a social tradition. This theory is extracted from a critical, and highly selective, reconstruction of the history of the concept of tradition.

The verification of bibliographic information in a known item search can be both lengthy and tedious. The difficulties in using some of the traditional sources are well‐known. For example, the National Union Catalog provides access only through main entry; Books in Print and the Cumulative Book Index have author, title, and subject access but are limited by the fact that they cover only books either in print in a given year or published in a given year. The result can be a frustrating and, at times, fruitless search.

The article introduces Edmund Burke’s world‐view and its implications for public administration. From Burke’s idea about human nature, tradition, law and representation, it has been argued that in a Burkean world, administrative discretion is essential and inevitable. By using their discretionary power, Burke emphasized that public administrators as virtual representatives will meet the ends of the law made by elected representatives. Also to build a tradition and ethical foundation for administration, Burke argued for a unified administration. Given human fallibility and self‐interest such a unified body can internally check administrative actions. Furthermore, in order to demonstrate the contemporary relevance of Burke’s thought, the paper compares and contrasts this Burkean view of public administration with the views of other influential scholars in public administration. Important similarities exist that show that his views continue to demonstrate fruitful application in the art of governance.

World War I is the pivot of twentieth century American history because it transformed the United States from a regional into a global power. As the fiftieth anniversary of World War II winds down, we remind ourselves of the first “Great War” and its continuing importance to American self‐conception and memory.

Sparked by the September 11 event, ethnic and religious diversity in the American culture has opened a new dialogue about tolerance to foreign cultures and religions. Using Burke’s views about morality and religious tolerance, this paper argues how ethical guidelines of public administrators ought to be sought from a universal moral law derived from natural principles and constitutional values of the regime. The argument focuses on Burkean prudence as a practical application of moral law and a guide for public administrators in a diverse global environment. Furthermore, it argues civil law to be inadequate in situations where the majority favors a particular opinion against a minority population. By acknowledging a universal moral law, public administrators can play a dual role as individuals building human relations in a diverse culture, and as public servants upholding Constitutional values to preserve the integrity of public institutions

“Nothing in progression can rest on its original plan,” said Edmund Burke, “We may as well think of rocking a grown man in the cradle of an infant.” Think of Burke's grown man as an established company, and the company's organizational structure as its cradle and you'll find the analogy is still apt. Given the rapid rate of environmental and social change, more and more companies are being stifled as they struggle to make their organization's structure fit new strategies that will allow the enterprise to reach its full potential.

The purpose of this paper is to contest Edwards et al.’s (2002) findings that resistance to the introduction of double-entry bookkeeping and the form that it took when implemented by the British Government in the mid-nineteenth century was the result of ideological conflict between the privileged landed aristocracy and the rising merchant middle class.

The study draws upon a collection of documents preserved as part of the Grigg Family Papers located in London and the Thomson Papers held in the Mitchell Library in Sydney. It also draws on evidence contained within the British National Archive, the National Maritime Museum and British Parliamentary Papers which has been overlooked by previous studies of the introduction of DEB.

Conflict and delays in the adoption of double-entry bookkeeping were not primarily the product of “ideological” differences between the influential classes. Instead, this study finds that conflict was the result of a complex amalgam of class interests, ideology, personal antipathy, professional intolerance and ambition. Newly discovered evidence recognises the critical, largely forgotten, work of John Deas Thomson in developing a double-entry bookkeeping system for the Royal Navy and the importance of Sir James Graham’s determination that matters of economy would be emphasised in the Navy’s accounting.

This study establishes that crucial to the ultimate implementation of double-entry bookkeeping was the passionate, determined support of influential champions with strong liberal beliefs, most especially John Deas Thomson and Sir James Graham. Prominence was given to economy in government.