Public Administration in the Third Century of the Constitution
Supply-Side Management, Privatization, or Public Investment
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 6358975 |
|---|---|
| Authors | James D Carroll (0000-0002-9205-1061, corresponding author) |
| Year | 1987 |
| Volume | 47 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 106-106 |
| Publication date | 1987-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Public Administration Review (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0033-3352 • E-ISSN: 1540-6210 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.2307/975477 |
| OpenAlex | W2322126930 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 5 |
| References cited | 4 |
Following ratification of the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton raised a fundamental question about the new system of government not directly addressed in the Constitution: What is the appropriate role of the federal government in the economic and social development of the nation? As secretary of Treasury, Hamilton advocated strong policies, and strong central administration of those policies: assumption by the federal government of debts of the states and of the United States; payment of debts through taxes; and establishment of a national bank to carry out these and related policies. According to Charles Beard,' Hamilton's program was a capital formation program designed to promote economic growth in the new nation. Hamilton's program was enacted by the first Congress and signed into law by President Washington. It contributed to the development of a central administrative organization of the new government.2 Hamilton's justification of his program significantly affected constitutional history. It was adopted by Chief Justice John Marshall almost for word in Marshall's decision in 1819 upholding the power of Congress to charter a bank.3 Marshall's decision served as precedent for the exercise of substantial economic and administrative powers by the federal government later in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Hamilton's program raised but did not definitively answer a question recurrently debated ever since: To what extent and in what ways should the federal government be responsible for economic and social develop
Administration (probate law · Business · Commerce · Constitution · Demand side · Economic policy · Economics · Investment (military · Market economy · Political science · Politics · Public investment · Supply side · American Constitutional Law and Politics · Law · Public Administration
| Unique citing works | 5 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0.14 |
| Citation span | 1989 - 1992 (4) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 5 |