Book Review: Good enough for government work: The public reputation crisis in America (and what we can do to fix it)

• Author: James Gerard Caillier
• DOI: 10.1177/0275074020904455
• Published date: 01 May 2020
• Date: 01 May 2020
• Subject Matter: Book Reviews

Book Reviews 439

public servants could be relied upon to perform heroic acts of

self-sacrifice. Instead, believing that the nation needed a

strong government and administrative discretion, he made

room for independent judgment; but recognizing the foibles

of human nature, he promoted a type of public morality

based on selfish but socially useful passions (self-interest,

ambition, love of honor). This resulted in a “public morality

of administration” which focused less on classical or

Christian virtues and more on republican principles such as

“representation, due process, equity, accountability, transpar-

ency, [and] responsiveness” (p. 118).

Hamilton’s robust administration could therefore play a

significant role in promoting a stable and strong United

States, particularly through economic policy. Green outlines

Hamilton’s financial plans, providing copious yet coherent

detail. Most notably, Hamilton hoped to promote economic

stability and growth through an approach that emphasized

simplicity and transparency, a policy that promoted the good

of the common man while tax burdens fell primarily on

‘objects of luxury and splendor’ (p. 126). His policy called

for significant, yet ultimately finite, governmental involve-

ment in economic affairs. First and foremost, the government

must provide a stable economic playing field, providing a

reliable currency and restoring faith in public credit.

Moreover, government could use tariffs and bounties to

encourage fledgling American industry. At the same time,

Hamilton also recognized the bounds of government action

and “cautioned against extended use of tariffs for protection

rather than revenue purposes” (p. 153). His understanding of

the government’s financial role was therefore not only broad

and positive but also limited.

Finally, Green examines Hamilton’s military and foreign

policy. Hamilton believed the nation would remain free only

if supported by a strong military and a prudent foreign pol-

icy. In contrast to Antifederalist and Jeffersonian fears that

military might would undermine republican liberty,

Hamilton believed that a strong, professionalized, and

responsible military establishment was necessary for main-

taining the nation’s freedom. In addition, this force would

ensure the nation was respected “not only for its might and

readiness but also for its restraint, good judgment, and pro-

portionality in response to hostility” (pp. 158–159). During

the Quasi-War with France, Hamilton took an active role in

advising War Secretary James McHenry on military affairs,

proffering suggestions on issues as diverse as supply pro-

curement, personnel policy, and organizational structure.

Hamilton’s recommendations for the administration of for-

eign affairs may have been more restricted, yet Green not

only outlines the contours of Hamilton’s foreign policy real-

ism but also reminds us that Hamilton believed a steady and

respectable foreign policy could only be maintained through

a professional and disciplined diplomatic corps. As Hamilton

was only the Treasury Secretary, not the Prime Minister,

Green’s chapter on military and foreign affairs is ultimately

more theoretical and somewhat less focused on administra-

tion, yet he successfully shows the influence Hamilton

had—or tried to have—on the War and State departments.

Administration is government in action, and Hamilton was

fascinated with (and expertly conversant in) virtually all

aspects of administration.

Green has produced an insightful and provocative

account—which we might describe as an administrative-intel-

lectual biography—of the intricate and multivariate role of

public administration in Hamilton’s political thought. Green

responds to and builds upon prior work on Hamilton by Karl-

Friedrich Walling, Harvey Flaumenhaft, and Michael Federici;

in contrast to these scholars, Green strives to engage more

seriously with the way Hamilton’s public policy and adminis-

trative theory interacted seamlessly. This work is influenced

by scholars such as Leonard White, Herbert Storing, and John

Rohr. It is a worthy contribution from a scholar of the

Constitutional School of public administration. Strikingly,

Green also manages to explain the larger intellectual tradition

that influenced Hamilton, interspersing his analysis of

Hamilton with references to major political and economic

thinkers, from Locke to Smith, and from Hume to Aristotle.

His work will be of interest not only to public administration

scholars but also to students of American Political Thought,

constitutional law, and the presidency. Green has undertaken

the enormous task of engaging with one of America’s political

giants and has ably displayed his mastery of Hamilton’s

thought. This is no mean accomplishment.

ORCID iD

Kevin J. Burns https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4672-8200

Lerman, A. E. (2019). Good enough for government work: The public

reputation crisis in America (and what we can do to fix it). Chicago,

IL: The University of Chicago Press. 317 pp. $27.50. ISBN

9780226630205.

Reviewed by: James Gerard Caillier , The University of

Alabama, Tuscaloosa, USA

DOI: 10.1177/0275074020904455

Scholars have frequently studied how citizens feel about

government because these perceptions are viewed as a criti-

cal way to assess the performance of government. However,

citizens’ beliefs about government are complex and some-

times have little to do with government’s actual performance

(Caillier, 2018). This is a serious problem that can limit the

utility of the government performance information that is

published by agencies and watchdog groups. In the book

titled Good Enough for Government Work: The Public

Reputation Crisis in America (And What We Can Do to Fix

It), Amy E. Lerman investigates the conundrum surrounding

citizen’s perceptions of government. Her central argument is

that American’s opinions regarding public organizations are

biased downward. That is, Americans tend to believe that