FOREWORD This is the final report on a study conducted by The Brookings Institution of the administration of the foreign affairs and overseas operations of the United States Government. The study was undertaken at the request of the Bureau of the Budget, in June 1950. Specifically its purpose was to explore the major requirements of, and the problems involved in, the organization and administration of foreign affairs and overseas operations, and to develop and present conclusions concerning them. It was intended that the study should derive from, and provide an extension of, the work of the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government (the Hoover Commission). In one of its reports that commission had recommended a further comprehensive study of the entire problem of overseas operation and administration, while in various other reports it had made related recommendations on the administration of foreign affairs, some of which have been carried out and others of which have appeared to require further study. The Institution submitted, in December 1950, a preliminary report on some of the more pressing problems with respect to the administration of military and economic aid. The research and investigation for both the preliminary and final reports began with a review by the staff of the pertinent materials and studies available to it. Four staff members made field investigations of United States diplomatic, military and economic aid missions and the general problems of administration and coordination of the diverse organizational units operating in Europe. Countries visited by one or more staff members were Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the Federal Republic of Germany. Almost 200 persons with important responsibilities for United States programs on the country and regional level were interviewed, together with more than 200 officials responsible for various aspects of the administration of foreign affairs in Washington. Staff discussions then proceeded to an analysis of the information gained, to an identification of the issues and problems, and to an evaluation of possible alternatives for meeting them. Invaluable help was received throughout from the members of the agencies having foreign affairs responsibilities, who consulted freely and frankly, in groups and individually, to aid in clarifying the issues and in testing the alternative solutions. Chief among the agencies consulted were, of course, those with major foreign affairs responsibilities, the Departments of State and Defense and the Economic Cooperation Administration, and various units within the Executive Office of the President. Other agencies consulted in varying degrees were the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Interior, Justice, Labor, Post Office and Treasury; the Civil Service Commission, the Civil Aeronautics Board, the ExportImport Bank, the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Security Agency, the General Services Administration, the Tariff Commission, and the Veterans' Administration. Members of the staff of the Bureau of the Budget contributed immeasurably in presenting pertinent information as to past and proposed actions, in identifying the problems, and in posing various alternatives for consideration. Prior to arriving at conclusions, experts in the field of economics, international relations, and public administration were consulted. These included Royden J. Dangerfield, professor of international relations, University of Illinois; Rowland Egger, professor of political science, University of Virginia; John Gange, director, Woodrow Wilson School of Foreign Affairs, University of Virginia; Grayson Kirk, provost, Columbia University; Arthur W. Macmahon, professor of public administration, Columbia University; James L. McCamy, professor of political science, University of Wisconsin; John F. Meck, treasurer, Dartmouth College; Don K. Price, associate director, Public Administration Clearing House; Charles F. Remer, professor of economics, University of Michigan; and Harold Stein, staff director, Committee on Public Administration Cases. The Institution's regular personnel assigned to the study and those specially employed for it on a regular or consultant basis were selected for their recognized training and experience in government organization and the professional fields concerned. These include: In addition, a number of the Institution's regular personnel, espe cially the following, have contributed in their fields of specialty: Joseph W. Ballantine. A. Mason Harlow. Charles J. Moore. Thomas R. Phillips. Charles A. H. Thomson. The project staff has been able to draw on the resources of the Institution Library and its Current Developments staff and files. The following assisted in the typing of manuscripts and in the production of the finished volume: Dorothy M. Mathews, Janet Burr, Sonia Cohen, Harriet Curry, William Fink, Thelma Harrison, and Kathryn Langston. The various chapters of the present report are each in large degree a joint product of the work of several members of the staff. Special acknowledgement is made of the contributions of the following staff members in connection with the preparation of particular chapters: chapter IV, Wilfred Owen; chapter V, Robert H. Connery; chapter VI, Clarence E. Thurber; chapter VII, Earl L. Packer; chapter VIII, Wallace S. Sayre; chapter IX, Seymour J. Rubin. The undersigned, together with William A. Reitzel and Robert W. Hartley, constituted a general editorial committee for the project. LEO PASVOLSKY, Director, International Studies Group. Senior Staff Member in Charge of the Project. WASHINGTON, D. C., June 1, 1951. |