Centralized Purchasing in Governments of United States and Canada
| Author | Russell Forbes |
| DOI | 10.1177/000271622411300137 |
| Published date | 01 May 1924 |
| Date | 01 May 1924 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
272
Centralized
Purchasing
in
Governments
of
United
States
and
Canada
By
RUSSELL
FORBES
Research
Secretary,
National
Association
of
Purchasing
Agents,
New
York
City
AGITATION
for
centralized
pur-
chasing
of
governmental
supplies
is
by
no
means
a
recent
development.
On
the
contrary,
centralized
purchasing
has
been
an
issue
in
the
United
States
practically
ever
since
the
birth
of
our
republic.
Alexander
Hamilton,
as
Secretary
of
the
Treasury,
maintained
that the
pur-
chase
of
all
military supplies
should
come
under
the
jurisdiction
of
the
Treasury
Department.
On
May
8,
1792,
Congress
enacted
that:
All
purchases
and
contracts
for
supplying
the
Army
with
provisions,
clothing,
sup-
plies
in
the
quartermaster’s
department,
military
stores,
Indian
goods,
and
all
other
supplies
for
the
use
of
the
Department
of
War,
be
made
by
and
under
the
direction
of
the
Treasury
Department.
On
January
7,
1794,
President
Wash-
ington
recommended
to
Congress
that
a
Purveyor
of
Public
Supplies
be
ap-
pointed
to
discharge
such
duties.
This
was
authorized
by
an
act
approved
on
February
3,
1795.
The
Purveyor
of
Public
Supplies
was
later
directed
to
execute
supply
orders
from
the
Secre-
tary
of
War
and
Secretary
of
Navy.
The
office
of
Purveyor
was
abolished
in
1812.
Subsequently,
from
time
to
time,
cities
and
states
considered
the
plan
and
several
sporadic
attempts
were
made
to
establish
it.
But
the
move-
ment
gained
little
impetus
until
almost
the
beginning
of
the
present
century.
The
present-day
trend
of
progress
in
government
is
unmistakably
toward
greater
centralization
of
responsibility.
Twentieth-century
&dquo;reform&dquo;
programs
in
governments
have
almost
invariably
proposed
centralization
as
the
future
&dquo;sailing-chart&dquo;
to
guide
the
ship
of
state
into
less
troubled
waters.
One
of
the
byproducts
of
this
general
trend
in
government
is
the
centralized
method
of
buying.
The
District
of
Columbia
is
usually
credited
with
having
established
the
first
full-fledged
municipal
purchasing
agency
which
survived
the
experimen-
tal
stage.
The
purchasing
agency
established
for
the
city
of
Washington,
D.
C.,
in
1896
has
operated
continu-
ously
ever
since.
In
1897
the
state
of
Iowa
appointed
a
Board
of
Control
and
gave
it
authority
to
supervise
all
pur-
chasing
for
the
penal
and
charitable
institutions
of
the
state.
Oklahoma
was
the
first
state
to
try
centralized
purchasing
for
the
entire
state
organi-
zation.
In
1910
the
Oklahoma
State
Board
of
Supplies
was
charged
with
purchasing
all
supplies
for
all
state
de-
partments
and
institutions.
From
these
beginnings,
centralized
purchasing
has
been
extended
to
all
branches
of
government
in
the
United
States
and
Canada.
At
the
present
time,
the
centralized
method
of
buying
is
followed
in
36
states,
3
provinces,
50
counties
in
the
United
States,
and
196
cities
in
the
United
States
and
Canada.
The
Federal
Government
of
the
Do-
minion
has
provided
an
organization
for
centralized
buying
and
the
United
States
Government
practises
central-
ized
contract-execution.
The
fact
that,
once
tried,
the
cen-
tralized
method
of
buying
has
seldom
been
abolished
is
one
of
the
strongest
To continue reading
Request your trial