No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Reichsreform and Prussian Verwaltungsreform in 1932
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
Extract
Some forty years ago, the German Empire was described as “a compact between a lion, half a dozen foxes, and a score of mice.” Although the “lion” has lost his special prerogatives and some of the “mice” have since vanished, the problem of the “political menagerie” is still largely unsolved. Shall Germany become a unitary state, or shall it retain certain federal characteristics? What shall be the territorial organization and powers of the states and their relations to the Reich? The framers of the Weimar constitution of 1919 wrestled with these questions, but were able to reach no permanent answers. The present article is an attempt to summarize recent developments bearing upon the problem of Reichsreform, particularly the federal aspects thereof, and to link these developments with Verwaltungsreform in Prussia.
- Type
- Foreign Governments and Politics
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Political Science Association 1933
References
1 Lowell, A. L., Government and Parties in Continental Europe (Boston, 1896), Vol. I, p. 246Google Scholar.
2 See Brunet, René, The New German Constitution (New York, 1922), Chap. IIGoogle Scholar.
3 See table in the writer's German Cities (Princeton, 1932), p. 18Google Scholar.
4 For an excellent account of these proposals, see Vogel, Walther, Deutsche Reichsgliederung und Reichsreform in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart (Berlin, 1932), pp. 99–128Google Scholar. Cf. Pohlandt, Max Rudolph, Reich, Länder und Selbstverwaltungskörper: Grundsätzliches zur deutschen Verfassungs- und Verwaltungsreform (Berlin, 1931)Google Scholar; and Kraus, Herbert, The Crisis of German Democracy (Princeton, 1932), Chap. VIIGoogle Scholar.
5 For details, see the evening edition of the Berliner Tageblatt, Aug. 22, 1932.
6 RGB1., 1932, Part I, p. 377. See also Grabowsky, Adolf, “Das Problem Preussen,” Zeitschrift für Politik, Vol. XXII (Aug.-Sept., 1932), pp. 312–318Google Scholar.
7 Zweite Sparverordnung of Dec. 23, 1931, GS., 1931, pp. 293–300. This decree was based on the blanket authorizations of the presidential emergency decrees of Aug. 24 and Oct. 6, 1931. See RGB1., 1931, Part I, pp. 435, 537.
8 Verordnung of July 30, 1932, GS., 1932, p. 253.
9 Regierungsbezirk Stralsund. Verordnung of July 30, 1932, ibid., p. 277.
10 Verordnung über die Neugliederung von Landkreisen of Aug. 1, 1932, ibid., p. 255, supplemented by Verordnung of Sept. 27, ibid., p. 315. See von Leyden, Victor, “Die Neugliederung der preussischen Landkreise. Ein Schritt zur Verwaltungsreform,” Der deutsche Volkswirt, VI (Aug. 5, 1932), pp. 1481–1483Google Scholar.
11 Verordnung of Sept 3, GS., 1932, pp. 283–295. See von Hardenberg, , “Verordnung zur Vereinfachung und Verbilligung der Verwaltung,” Staats- und Selbstverwaltung, XIII (Oct. 2, 1932), pp. 369–374Google Scholar; and Friedensburg, F., “Die Pressische Verwaltungsreform,” Der deutsche Volkswirt, VII (Oct. 7, 1932), pp. 13–15Google Scholar.
12 It has often been argued that it is unnecessary to have both chief presidents and district presidents, and that one of these offices should be abolished. This argument was rejected because of the possibility of Reichsreform.
13 Zweite Verordnung zur Vereinfachung und Verbilligung der Verwaltung of Oct. 29, GS., 1932, p. 333Google Scholar; see also Gramsch, , “Die Umbildung der preussischen Ministerien,” Reichsverwaltungsblatt und Preussisches Verwaltungsblatt, LIII (Nov. 12 1932), pp. 908–910Google Scholar.
14 Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, Nov. 13, 1932.
15 See C. J. Friedrich, “The Development of the Executive Power in Germany,” above. The writer is indebted to Professor Friedrich for reading and criticizing the manuscript of the present article.
16 It is too soon to predict what will be the final outcome of the policies of the Hitler-Hugenberg-von Papen cabinet in relation to Reichsreform.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.