<論説>近代イギリス官僚制度改革史再考 : 調査委員会と官僚たちの同床異夢

Abstract

本稿では、近代イギリスにおける官僚制度改革の漸進を支えた社会的メカニズムを解明するため、調査委員会の活動とそれに対する官僚たちの反応を分析する。一八五〇年代に始まる改革は、一八七〇〜九〇年代の調査委員会により具体的に議論された。他方、委員会の活動は官僚向け新聞により詳細に報道された。新聞は官僚たちに様々な見解を流通させ、改革に対する彼らの意見や提案を発表する媒体ともなった。改革を「主動」する側は、能力主義の導入により人件費の削減と行政組織の合理化を目指した。一方、「受動」側の官僚たちにとって改革は、現場で起こる問題を是正する契機であった。ゆえに彼らは改革に高い関心を抱き、ときには新たな手段を模索しつつ委員会の留書に食い下がった。委員会の面談や投書といった「受動」側の対応がもつ切実さや説得力は、「主動」側が改革案を再調整しつつ、行政機構の「近代化」を推し進めるために必須の要件であった。

This article examines the proposals of the members of the commissions of inquiry for civil service reform and the reaction of civil servants in order to clarify the social mechanism that sustained the gradual improvement and reform of the bureaucracy in late-19th century England. Civil service reform had been recommended by S. Northcote and C. E Trevelyan in 1853, and concrete proposals were made by the Playfair Commission in 1870s and by the Ridley Commission between the 1880s and 1890s. Both commissions held interviews with many witnesses, including civil servants, and analyzed the issues concerning government bureaucracies in order to resolve the issues. The newspapers reported the commissioners' proposals and progress made in the reforms. The weekly newspapers for the civil service, for example the Civil Service Review and Civil Service Times, in particular, were important news sources, providing their readership of civil servants news of the reforms. Journalists from those newspapers sometimes had high expectations of the activities of the commissioners, but they sometimes criticized the proposals of the commission in light of the actual situation in the bureaucracy. Some readers submitted their opinions in response to the articles on the reforms and offered alternative plans. Throughout the civil service reform, the group who actively pushed for the reform, i. e., reformers and members of the commissions of inquiry, pursued the goals of reducing personnel expenditures and creating an efficient civil service. However, a 'passive' group played an indispensable part in the reform. The reform was also an opportunity for the 'passive' group to remedy problems that had arisen in the bureaucracy, such as various issues of working condition In that sense, they were considerably concerned with the reforms and responded keenly to information, and raised objections to the proposals of the commissions, seeking a more effective way to resolve the problems. Opinions and responses of the 'passive' group, which appeared in interviews and articles in the newspapers, were effective in adjusting the proposals and activities of the 'active' group. Such a reaction was a necessary factor in the reform, contributing to the improvement and modernization of the administrative organization. The 'passive' group worked to modify the plans of the 'active' group, who prioritized national efficiency, and to adjust them so they would be more practical and acceptable. Therefore, the 'passive' group functioned as a safety brake in the reform against the 'active' group who behaved as the accelerators of reform. The civil service newspapers acted as the interface between the two groups. This mechanism was characteristic of the civil service reform in late-19th century England that was not rapid and did not involve excessive change, but was instead gradual and suited for re-organization. This character might have induced the reform to proceed as 'appropriate' modernization. Civil service reform has a long history. This indicates that the reorganization of the civil service system was necessary and the result of many demands. However, civil service reform was not achieved by the one-sided claims of the 'active' group alone. The 'passive' group did not simply exist to be interrogated by the 'active' group. It can be seen that one of the features that contributed to the development of the bureaucracy in the modern England was the long-term concern and unique reaction of the 'passive' group in the reform. Therefore, studying the viewpoints of both the 'passive' and 'active' groups on the reforms can create an opportunity for reconsidering our perspective on modern English government administration.