Jump to content

Progressivism: Difference between revisions

From The Austrian Economics Wiki, the global repository of classical-liberal thought
← Older edit
mNo edit summary
mNo edit summary
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 35: Line 35:
Progressivism generally treats social institutions as capable of deliberate modification rather than as arrangements that must simply be preserved because they already exist.
Progressivism generally treats social institutions as capable of deliberate modification rather than as arrangements that must simply be preserved because they already exist.


This orientation produces a distinction, adapted here from Friedrich Hayek's account of spontaneously generated and deliberately constructed orders, between spontaneous social change and directed social change.<ref>Hayek, Friedrich A. Law, Legislation and Liberty, Volume 1: Rules and Order. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1973.</ref> Spontaneous change occurs through the cumulative and often uncoordinated actions of individuals and associations. Directed change occurs when individuals or institutions deliberately seek to produce a particular social outcome. This vocabulary is used here as an analytical tool for describing progressivism, not as a term progressive thinkers themselves generally used.
This orientation produces a distinction, adapted here from [[Friedrich Hayek]]'s account of spontaneously generated and deliberately constructed orders, between spontaneous social change and directed social change.<ref>Hayek, Friedrich A. Law, Legislation and Liberty, Volume 1: Rules and Order. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1973.</ref> Spontaneous change occurs through the cumulative and often uncoordinated actions of individuals and associations. Directed change occurs when individuals or institutions deliberately seek to produce a particular social outcome. This vocabulary is used here as an analytical tool for describing progressivism, not as a term progressive thinkers themselves generally used.


Progressive political thought often embraced the latter approach. Herbert Croly argued for a form of government that combined strong national authority with the aim of broadening democratic opportunity, a synthesis he described in terms of employing "Hamiltonian means" to secure "Jeffersonian ends."<ref>Croly, Herbert. The Promise of American Life. Macmillan, New York, 1909.</ref> His conception called for federal regulatory institutions staffed by experts and accepted a degree of individual subordination to broader social purposes.<ref>Croly, Herbert. The Promise of American Life. Macmillan, New York, 1909.</ref>
Progressive political thought often embraced the latter approach. Herbert Croly argued for a form of government that combined strong national authority with the aim of broadening democratic opportunity, a synthesis he described in terms of employing "Hamiltonian means" to secure "Jeffersonian ends."<ref>Croly, Herbert. The Promise of American Life. Macmillan, New York, 1909.</ref> His conception called for federal regulatory institutions staffed by experts and accepted a degree of individual subordination to broader social purposes.<ref>Croly, Herbert. The Promise of American Life. Macmillan, New York, 1909.</ref>
Line 51: Line 51:
Where progressivism identifies a social condition as undesirable and a different condition as preferable, political institutions provide one means through which reform can be pursued.
Where progressivism identifies a social condition as undesirable and a different condition as preferable, political institutions provide one means through which reform can be pursued.


The mechanisms available to government include legislation, taxation, subsidies, regulation, licensing, public expenditure, administrative action, public education, and restrictions or penalties. These mechanisms can operate through either incentive or coercion, making some forms of conduct less costly or more attractive while making other forms more costly, difficult, or legally impermissible.
The mechanisms available to government include [[legislation]], [[taxation]], subsidies, regulation, licensing, public expenditure, administrative action, [[public education]], and restrictions or penalties. These mechanisms can operate through either incentive or coercion, making some forms of conduct less costly or more attractive while making other forms more costly, difficult, or legally impermissible.


Progressive reformers historically expanded the use of government as an instrument of social and economic reform.<ref>Grisinger, Joanna. "The (Long) Administrative Century: Progressive Models of Governance." In The Progressives' Century: Political Reform, Constitutional Government, and the Modern American State, edited by Stephen Skowronek, Stephen M. Engel, and Bruce Ackerman, Yale University Press, New Haven, 2016, pp. 360 to 381.</ref> The Progressive Era saw the development of regulatory commissions and administrative agencies addressing areas including banking, transportation, public utilities, labor, and other economic activities.<ref>Grisinger, Joanna. "The (Long) Administrative Century: Progressive Models of Governance." In The Progressives' Century: Political Reform, Constitutional Government, and the Modern American State, edited by Stephen Skowronek, Stephen M. Engel, and Bruce Ackerman, Yale University Press, New Haven, 2016, pp. 360 to 381.</ref> Progressive thinkers also developed new theories concerning the relationship between democratic government and administrative expertise.<ref>Grisinger, Joanna. "The (Long) Administrative Century: Progressive Models of Governance." In The Progressives' Century: Political Reform, Constitutional Government, and the Modern American State, edited by Stephen Skowronek, Stephen M. Engel, and Bruce Ackerman, Yale University Press, New Haven, 2016, pp. 360 to 381.</ref><ref>Skowronek, Stephen, Stephen M. Engel, and Bruce Ackerman, eds. The Progressives' Century: Political Reform, Constitutional Government, and the Modern American State. Yale University Press, New Haven, 2016.</ref>
Progressive reformers historically expanded the use of government as an instrument of social and economic reform.<ref>Grisinger, Joanna. "The (Long) Administrative Century: Progressive Models of Governance." In The Progressives' Century: Political Reform, Constitutional Government, and the Modern American State, edited by Stephen Skowronek, Stephen M. Engel, and Bruce Ackerman, Yale University Press, New Haven, 2016, pp. 360 to 381.</ref> The Progressive Era saw the development of regulatory commissions and administrative agencies addressing areas including banking, transportation, public utilities, labor, and other economic activities.<ref>Grisinger, Joanna. "The (Long) Administrative Century: Progressive Models of Governance." In The Progressives' Century: Political Reform, Constitutional Government, and the Modern American State, edited by Stephen Skowronek, Stephen M. Engel, and Bruce Ackerman, Yale University Press, New Haven, 2016, pp. 360 to 381.</ref> Progressive thinkers also developed new theories concerning the relationship between democratic government and administrative expertise.<ref>Grisinger, Joanna. "The (Long) Administrative Century: Progressive Models of Governance." In The Progressives' Century: Political Reform, Constitutional Government, and the Modern American State, edited by Stephen Skowronek, Stephen M. Engel, and Bruce Ackerman, Yale University Press, New Haven, 2016, pp. 360 to 381.</ref><ref>Skowronek, Stephen, Stephen M. Engel, and Bruce Ackerman, eds. The Progressives' Century: Political Reform, Constitutional Government, and the Modern American State. Yale University Press, New Haven, 2016.</ref>
Line 63: Line 63:
===Criticism===
===Criticism===


Progressivism has been criticized from several different ideological and theoretical perspectives. These criticisms do not necessarily reject the goals sought by progressive reformers; rather, they question assumptions concerning knowledge, authority, liberty, institutional change, and the capacity of government to produce intended outcomes.
Progressivism has been criticized from several different ideological and theoretical perspectives. These criticisms do not necessarily reject the goals sought by progressive reformers; rather, they question assumptions concerning knowledge, authority, [[liberty]], institutional change, and the capacity of government to produce intended outcomes.


'''Epistemic and Knowledge-Based Criticism'''
'''Epistemic and Knowledge-Based Criticism'''

Latest revision as of 06:44, 16 August 2026

Progressivism

Progressivism is a political and social philosophy distinguished not simply by a belief that human conditions can improve over time, but by the belief that social progress can be consciously identified, pursued, and facilitated through deliberate reform. It encompasses a diverse range of movements, thinkers, and political programs whose objectives and methods have varied across time and political contexts.[1] Although progressives have differed substantially regarding what constitutes social progress and which reforms are desirable, progressivism generally treats existing social conditions as subject to deliberate evaluation, alteration, and improvement through purposeful collective action.[2]

The Concept of Progress

Progressivism presupposes a distinction between change and progress. Change describes a difference between one state of affairs and another, whereas progress implies movement toward a condition regarded as preferable. Consequently, a conception of progress incorporates some standard by which alternative social conditions can be judged.

Progressive thought has frequently treated new knowledge, changing social conditions, and experience as grounds for revising existing institutions.[3] John Dewey, one of the most influential philosophers associated with American progressivism, rejected the idea that existing institutions should be treated as permanent merely because they had been inherited from the past.[4] His pragmatist, or "experimentalist," approach treated social and political arrangements as subject to continuing examination and revision in light of experience.[5]

This conception does not require progress to have a single predetermined endpoint. Progressive thinkers have differed over what constitutes a desirable society and over the means by which it can be achieved.[6] Contemporary scholarship likewise treats the meaning of "progressivism" and "progressive" as contested and internally diverse.[7]

The concept of progress nevertheless raises an underlying political question: what constitutes improvement, and who determines the direction in which society should move?

The Identification of Progress

A political program directed toward social progress requires some means of identifying the conditions considered preferable to those that presently exist. Progressive thinkers have proposed different answers to this question.

In some forms of progressivism, this function is assigned substantially to democratic deliberation and public participation. Dewey conceived democracy not merely as a method for selecting political officials but as a continuing process of communication through which society could identify and address its problems.[8] His political philosophy associated scientific inquiry and democratic deliberation with the capacity of society to adapt to changing conditions.[9] Dewey also rejected the idea that a class of experts should simply determine the public interest on behalf of society, emphasizing discussion, consultation, and participation as means of informing both citizens and administrative specialists.[10]

Other progressive thinkers placed greater emphasis on specialized knowledge, expertise, professional administration, or scientific inquiry. Sociologist Lester Ward, an early and influential figure in American progressive thought, distinguished between what he termed "genesis," referring to social development driven by unplanned forces, and "telesis," referring to development consciously directed through applied knowledge.[11] Ward argued that the accumulated achievements of civilization gave humanity an increasing capacity to guide its own development through rational effort.[12]

The question of who should apply such knowledge was addressed by other Progressive Era thinkers through the development of administrative theory. Woodrow Wilson's 1887 essay "The Study of Administration" argued that the growing complexity of modern government required systematic study of administration and more professional methods of governmental execution, holding that "administration lies outside the proper sphere of politics."[13] Frank Goodnow subsequently distinguished between politics, which he defined as "the expression of the will of the state," and administration, which he defined as "the execution of that will."[14]

A further approach combined empirical investigation with direct engagement with the communities affected by reform. Jane Addams, who co-founded Hull House in Chicago in 1889, described its purpose in terms of investigating and improving conditions in the city's industrial districts.[15] The settlement-house movement consequently provided a means through which direct observation and systematic social investigation could inform reform efforts.[16]

The development of these approaches coincided with the emergence of new conceptions of administration in which government could employ specialized knowledge to address increasingly complex social and economic conditions.[17] Scholarship on the Progressive Era identifies the development of administrative institutions and regulatory agencies as a significant component of this transformation.[18][19]

The distinction is significant because a program of deliberate social improvement raises the question of which actors will serve as agents of reform. Depending on the particular form of progressivism, these agents may include voters, social movements, intellectuals, professional organizations, elected officials, administrators, scientists, economists, educators, or other experts. Contemporary progressive political theory has explicitly resisted a purely top-down answer to this question, describing a progressive approach as properly organized around a cooperative effort between theorists and the organized and unorganized social movements it terms "agents of change," rather than around theorists or experts dictating a program on their own.[20]

Progressivism therefore does not necessarily prescribe rule by an intellectual or administrative elite. Indeed, some progressive thinkers, including Dewey, explicitly rejected government by a self-appointed class of experts.[21] It does, however, raise the question of how specialized knowledge, political judgment, empirical investigation, and democratic preferences are to be reconciled when determining what constitutes social improvement.

The Direction of Social Change

Progressivism generally treats social institutions as capable of deliberate modification rather than as arrangements that must simply be preserved because they already exist.

This orientation produces a distinction, adapted here from Friedrich Hayek's account of spontaneously generated and deliberately constructed orders, between spontaneous social change and directed social change.[22] Spontaneous change occurs through the cumulative and often uncoordinated actions of individuals and associations. Directed change occurs when individuals or institutions deliberately seek to produce a particular social outcome. This vocabulary is used here as an analytical tool for describing progressivism, not as a term progressive thinkers themselves generally used.

Progressive political thought often embraced the latter approach. Herbert Croly argued for a form of government that combined strong national authority with the aim of broadening democratic opportunity, a synthesis he described in terms of employing "Hamiltonian means" to secure "Jeffersonian ends."[23] His conception called for federal regulatory institutions staffed by experts and accepted a degree of individual subordination to broader social purposes.[24]

Walter Weyl offered a related argument in The New Democracy (1912), writing that "the old laissez-faire philosophy is done for" and advocating coordinated action through government to distribute the material benefits of industrial development.[25] Richard Ely, an economist and reformer who helped found the American Economic Association, regarded active efforts to address poverty and injustice as an inescapable collective obligation rather than something that could be deferred to private charity or to the next world; in his own 1889 book Social Aspects of Christianity, Ely framed this obligation in explicitly religious terms.[26] Ely and other economists associated with the German Historical School approach he brought to the American Economic Association went further, arguing that this obligation should be pursued specifically through government intervention in economic life rather than through moral exhortation alone.[27]

These positions did not constitute a single unified theory of government, and Progressive Era thinkers differed substantially regarding the appropriate scope and method of governmental action. Taken together, however, this article reads Croly, Weyl, and Ely as illustrating a recurring progressive proposition: existing institutions and social arrangements may be deliberately evaluated and altered in pursuit of conditions regarded as superior.

The resulting conception of government is therefore not necessarily limited to maintaining an existing legal order. Government can instead become an instrument through which society attempts to achieve collectively identified objectives.

This conception does not imply that all progressives favor the same degree of governmental intervention. Progressive thought has included advocates of extensive administrative authority as well as thinkers, such as Dewey, who emphasized democratic participation, voluntary association, and other forms of social action.[28] The common feature, in this article's reading, is the treatment of existing social arrangements as subject to deliberate evaluation and reform.

Political and Institutional Mechanisms

Where progressivism identifies a social condition as undesirable and a different condition as preferable, political institutions provide one means through which reform can be pursued.

The mechanisms available to government include legislation, taxation, subsidies, regulation, licensing, public expenditure, administrative action, public education, and restrictions or penalties. These mechanisms can operate through either incentive or coercion, making some forms of conduct less costly or more attractive while making other forms more costly, difficult, or legally impermissible.

Progressive reformers historically expanded the use of government as an instrument of social and economic reform.[29] The Progressive Era saw the development of regulatory commissions and administrative agencies addressing areas including banking, transportation, public utilities, labor, and other economic activities.[30] Progressive thinkers also developed new theories concerning the relationship between democratic government and administrative expertise.[31][32]

This development did not necessarily arise from a desire to replace democracy with bureaucratic rule. Progressive theorists offered different, and at times competing, accounts of how administrative authority could be reconciled with democratic government. Some Progressive thinkers, drawing on Hegelian ideas that welfare provision, economic regulation, and administrative discretion could serve freedom rather than threaten it, argued that administration itself needed to be actively democratized, made responsive to public sentiment, rather than left as a purely technical function insulated from it.[33] Other scholars have gone further and questioned whether expert fact-finding and democratic value-determination can be cleanly separated at all, treating the distinction between administrative fact and political value as itself contestable rather than as a stable dividing line.[34]

The institutional mechanism nevertheless creates a distinction between persuading individuals to adopt a preferred course of action and altering the incentives or legal conditions under which individuals make their choices. The latter allows political authorities to influence social outcomes even when individuals would not independently produce the outcome sought by reformers.

Drawing together the material above, this article treats progressivism not simply as advocacy of particular reforms, but as a conception of social improvement in which political and institutional action may be used deliberately to move society toward conditions regarded as preferable. That synthesis is offered as an analytical reading of the sources discussed in the preceding sections, not as a claim that progressive thinkers themselves converged on a single formal definition along these lines.

Criticism

Progressivism has been criticized from several different ideological and theoretical perspectives. These criticisms do not necessarily reject the goals sought by progressive reformers; rather, they question assumptions concerning knowledge, authority, liberty, institutional change, and the capacity of government to produce intended outcomes.

Epistemic and Knowledge-Based Criticism

One criticism concerns the knowledge required to direct complex social systems. Critics influenced by the Austrian School of economics argue that economically and socially relevant knowledge is dispersed among individuals and is often contextual, local, and tacit. From this perspective, policymakers may lack the knowledge necessary to determine in advance which institutional arrangements will produce desired outcomes.

This criticism does not depend on assuming that policymakers are acting in bad faith. Instead, it challenges the proposition that the knowledge necessary for deliberate social coordination can be concentrated within political or administrative institutions. The distinction Friedrich Hayek draws between spontaneously generated orders and deliberately constructed orders is particularly relevant to this criticism.[35]

Classical Liberal and Libertarian Criticism

Classical liberal and libertarian critics object to progressivism when the pursuit of collective objectives requires coercive interference with individual choice, property, contract, or voluntary association. Herbert Spencer, writing as a classical liberal rather than in the later, more explicitly libertarian tradition his work went on to influence, argued in The Man Versus the State (1884), published as expanding legislative and administrative power was already becoming a live political question in Britain, that state-directed efforts to secure particular social outcomes tend cumulatively to enlarge coercive authority over individuals, a dynamic he explored under the title "the coming slavery" in one of the book's essays.[36] From this perspective, the desirability of a social outcome does not by itself establish the legitimacy of compelling individuals to participate in producing it.

The criticism therefore concerns not merely the ends sought by progressive reformers but the means employed to achieve them.

Conservative Criticism

Conservative critics have questioned the capacity of political reformers to understand the functions performed by inherited institutions and social practices. Edmund Burke's argument in Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790), that a society's traditions and institutions embody accumulated practical wisdom not fully visible to any individual reformer, is often treated as the founding statement of this line of criticism, later applied by conservative critics to Progressive Era and subsequent reform movements.[37] From this perspective, institutions may contain accumulated knowledge that is not readily apparent to those attempting to redesign them. Deliberate reconstruction can therefore produce unintended consequences even when undertaken for desirable purposes.

Socialist and Radical Criticism

Socialist and more radical critics have sometimes argued that progressive reform is insufficiently transformative. The historian Gabriel Kolko advanced an influential revisionist version of this argument in The Triumph of Conservatism (1963), contending that many Progressive Era regulatory measures were actively sought or shaped by the business interests they appeared to constrain, rather than imposed on those interests by reformers; this remains a contested interpretation among historians of the period rather than settled consensus.[38] From this perspective, reforms may alleviate particular social problems without altering the underlying economic or institutional structures responsible for them. Progressivism can therefore be criticized for seeking to reform existing systems rather than fundamentally replacing them.

Democratic Criticism

Progressivism can also be criticized on democratic grounds when claims of expertise or superior knowledge displace the preferences of those subject to political decisions. Walter Lippmann's Public Opinion (1922), the book that prompted Dewey's defense of participatory democracy discussed above, argued that the public generally lacked the information and attention needed to govern complex modern societies directly.[39] Lippmann pressed the argument further in a later book, The Phantom Public (1925), arguing that the public should be confined to a narrower role so that individuals might live free of "the trampling and the roar of a bewildered herd," and proposing a greater governing role for organized expertise instead. [21] The Progressive Era contained an unresolved tension between the use of expert administration and democratic participation, a tension that remains relevant to broader debates concerning the administrative state.[40][41]

Conversely, progressive theorists have argued that democratic government itself can provide the means by which societies collectively determine their objectives and revise institutions in response to changing conditions. The disagreement therefore concerns not simply whether government should act, but how collective decisions should be made and how expertise should relate to democratic judgment.

See also

References

  1. ↑ Milkis, Sidney M. "Progressivism." Encyclopaedia Britannica, www.britannica.com/topic/progressivism, accessed 2026.
  2. ↑ Biale, Enrico, and Corrado Fumagalli. "A Progressive Approach to Normative Political Theorizing." European Journal of Political Theory, vol. 24, no. 1, 2025, pp. 49 to 69.
  3. ↑ Frega, Roberto. "Dewey's Political Philosophy." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, plato.stanford.edu/entries/dewey-political, substantive revision 2023.
  4. ↑ Frega, Roberto. "Dewey's Political Philosophy." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, plato.stanford.edu/entries/dewey-political, substantive revision 2023.
  5. ↑ Frega, Roberto. "Dewey's Political Philosophy." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, plato.stanford.edu/entries/dewey-political, substantive revision 2023.
  6. ↑ Milkis, Sidney M. "Progressivism." Encyclopaedia Britannica, www.britannica.com/topic/progressivism, accessed 2026.
  7. ↑ Milkis, Sidney M. "Progressivism." Encyclopaedia Britannica, www.britannica.com/topic/progressivism, accessed 2026.
  8. ↑ Frega, Roberto. "Dewey's Political Philosophy." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, plato.stanford.edu/entries/dewey-political, substantive revision 2023.
  9. ↑ Frega, Roberto. "Dewey's Political Philosophy." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, plato.stanford.edu/entries/dewey-political, substantive revision 2023.
  10. ↑ Frega, Roberto. "Dewey's Political Philosophy." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, plato.stanford.edu/entries/dewey-political, substantive revision 2023.
  11. ↑ Ward, Lester F. Dynamic Sociology, or Applied Social Science. D. Appleton and Company, New York, 1883; and Applied Sociology. Ginn and Company, Boston, 1906.
  12. ↑ Ward, Lester F. Dynamic Sociology, or Applied Social Science. D. Appleton and Company, New York, 1883; and Applied Sociology. Ginn and Company, Boston, 1906.
  13. ↑ Wilson, Woodrow. "The Study of Administration." Political Science Quarterly, vol. 2, no. 2, 1887, pp. 197 to 222.
  14. ↑ Goodnow, Frank J. Politics and Administration: A Study in Government. Macmillan, New York, 1900.
  15. ↑ Addams, Jane. Twenty Years at Hull-House, with Autobiographical Notes. Macmillan, New York, 1910.
  16. ↑ Addams, Jane. Twenty Years at Hull-House, with Autobiographical Notes. Macmillan, New York, 1910.
  17. ↑ Grisinger, Joanna. "The (Long) Administrative Century: Progressive Models of Governance." In The Progressives' Century: Political Reform, Constitutional Government, and the Modern American State, edited by Stephen Skowronek, Stephen M. Engel, and Bruce Ackerman, Yale University Press, New Haven, 2016, pp. 360 to 381.
  18. ↑ Grisinger, Joanna. "The (Long) Administrative Century: Progressive Models of Governance." In The Progressives' Century: Political Reform, Constitutional Government, and the Modern American State, edited by Stephen Skowronek, Stephen M. Engel, and Bruce Ackerman, Yale University Press, New Haven, 2016, pp. 360 to 381.
  19. ↑ Skowronek, Stephen, Stephen M. Engel, and Bruce Ackerman, eds. The Progressives' Century: Political Reform, Constitutional Government, and the Modern American State. Yale University Press, New Haven, 2016.
  20. ↑ Biale, Enrico, and Corrado Fumagalli. "A Progressive Approach to Normative Political Theorizing." European Journal of Political Theory, vol. 24, no. 1, 2025, pp. 49 to 69.
  21. ↑ Frega, Roberto. "Dewey's Political Philosophy." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, plato.stanford.edu/entries/dewey-political, substantive revision 2023.
  22. ↑ Hayek, Friedrich A. Law, Legislation and Liberty, Volume 1: Rules and Order. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1973.
  23. ↑ Croly, Herbert. The Promise of American Life. Macmillan, New York, 1909.
  24. ↑ Croly, Herbert. The Promise of American Life. Macmillan, New York, 1909.
  25. ↑ Weyl, Walter E. The New Democracy: An Essay on Certain Political and Economic Tendencies in the United States. Macmillan, New York, 1912.
  26. ↑ Ely, Richard T. Social Aspects of Christianity and Other Essays. Thomas Y. Crowell and Company, New York, 1889.
  27. ↑ Rader, Benjamin G. The Academic Mind and Reform: The Influence of Richard T. Ely in American Life. University Press of Kentucky, Lexington, 1966.
  28. ↑ Frega, Roberto. "Dewey's Political Philosophy." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, plato.stanford.edu/entries/dewey-political, substantive revision 2023.
  29. ↑ Grisinger, Joanna. "The (Long) Administrative Century: Progressive Models of Governance." In The Progressives' Century: Political Reform, Constitutional Government, and the Modern American State, edited by Stephen Skowronek, Stephen M. Engel, and Bruce Ackerman, Yale University Press, New Haven, 2016, pp. 360 to 381.
  30. ↑ Grisinger, Joanna. "The (Long) Administrative Century: Progressive Models of Governance." In The Progressives' Century: Political Reform, Constitutional Government, and the Modern American State, edited by Stephen Skowronek, Stephen M. Engel, and Bruce Ackerman, Yale University Press, New Haven, 2016, pp. 360 to 381.
  31. ↑ Grisinger, Joanna. "The (Long) Administrative Century: Progressive Models of Governance." In The Progressives' Century: Political Reform, Constitutional Government, and the Modern American State, edited by Stephen Skowronek, Stephen M. Engel, and Bruce Ackerman, Yale University Press, New Haven, 2016, pp. 360 to 381.
  32. ↑ Skowronek, Stephen, Stephen M. Engel, and Bruce Ackerman, eds. The Progressives' Century: Political Reform, Constitutional Government, and the Modern American State. Yale University Press, New Haven, 2016.
  33. ↑ Emerson, Blake. "The Hegelian Progressives: Democratic Spirit in the New American State." In The Public's Law: Origins and Architecture of Progressive Democracy. Oxford University Press, New York, 2019.
  34. ↑ Jasanoff, Sheila. "A Century of Reason: Experts and Citizens in the Administrative State." In The Progressives' Century: Political Reform, Constitutional Government, and the Modern American State, edited by Stephen Skowronek, Stephen M. Engel, and Bruce Ackerman, Yale University Press, New Haven, 2016, pp. 382 to 404.
  35. ↑ Hayek, Friedrich A. Law, Legislation and Liberty, Volume 1: Rules and Order. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1973.
  36. ↑ Spencer, Herbert. The Man Versus the State. Williams and Norgate, London, 1884.
  37. ↑ Burke, Edmund. Reflections on the Revolution in France. J. Dodsley, London, 1790.
  38. ↑ Kolko, Gabriel. The Triumph of Conservatism: A Reinterpretation of American History, 1900 to 1916. Free Press of Glencoe, New York, 1963.
  39. ↑ Lippmann, Walter. Public Opinion. Harcourt, Brace and Company, New York, 1922.
  40. ↑ Emerson, Blake. "The Hegelian Progressives: Democratic Spirit in the New American State." In The Public's Law: Origins and Architecture of Progressive Democracy. Oxford University Press, New York, 2019.
  41. ↑ Jasanoff, Sheila. "A Century of Reason: Experts and Citizens in the Administrative State." In The Progressives' Century: Political Reform, Constitutional Government, and the Modern American State, edited by Stephen Skowronek, Stephen M. Engel, and Bruce Ackerman, Yale University Press, New Haven, 2016, pp. 382 to 404.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.freecapitalists.org/index.php?title=Progressivism&oldid=25776"