Analysis of the book "Administrative Argument" by C. Hood and M. Jackson

Abstract

Christopher Hood and Michael Jackson’s work, "Administrative Argument" is a research work that embraces the study of 99 administrative doctrines through time; it contemplates the analysis between doctrines, philosophies and justifications, assuming these three generic types. It highlights the problematic as to why, at certain times of history, one doctrine is more accepted than another, identifying the power of rhetoric, that underlies within the answer to this query and concentrating on the acceptance factor as a research line. A fundamental contribution is how it shows that the doctrines are not new, but rather they alternate through time, according to the evolution of each society and Nation, this concept is linked to the diverse notions of State during each time period. It presents 3 examples of administrative argument; The 1854 British Northcote  Trevelyan Report, the 1937 United States Brownlow Report, and the 1977 New South Wales Government Administration Wilenski Report. It is a complex work divided into four parts, presenting the particularity, at the authors' proposal, of being not necessarily read in lineal form, but with other variants according to the readers’ interests.