Progressive-era reform failed because cities lacked administrative tools, not good men.
Evidence
Their philosophy, seemingly so elementary, was new in 1907. Previously, in New York and in all American cities, reform crusades had been of the “throw the rascals out” variety; stung to fury by particularly blatant corruption, “Good Government” elements would rise up, oust the reigning political bosses and seat in the mayor’s chair a hero who they hoped would “save” the city. But salvation was invariably denied because the administrative systems of cities were so chaotic that change in the direction of government was all but impossible. … In city after city, they failed to make an appreciable dent in municipal problems and, after a term or two, the rascals they had thrown out were back in. — Robert A. Caro, The Power Broker, 256
Categorization
- XREF: Connects to the trust/social-capital literature and institution-design readings — this is the same ‘institutions vs. individuals’ claim found in Milgrom on the law merchant. — connects to: Early reform failed because cities lacked administrative tools like budgets — Robert A. Caro, The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the…, 256; The progressive judicial policy failed because administrators lacked knowledge of the customs they oversaw
- SEED: Angle: “Tools not heroes” — the administrative-preconditions argument as a lens on today’s reform movements that still hunt for savior candidates.
Broader Connections
- Early reform failed because cities lacked administrative tools like budgets
#corroborates(0.92) — Robert A. Caro, The Power Broker, 256 - The progressive judicial policy failed because administrators lacked knowledge of the customs they oversaw
#qualifies(0.75)