Responding to yesterday's post, ck critiqued my either/or question:
"So, the more focused question is whether any conceptual/philosophical reference to accountability constitutes "Freedom of Information" or if FOI is the product of more specific historical conditions?"
And for good reason. I suppose I should then call out for critique Blanton's statment, quoted yesterday, concerning the origin of the Swedish FOI, "The reason was not Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The reason was real politik." ck recommends an explanation that considers both reasons. Even though Rousseau was not the reason, Lamble showed that Enlightenment philosophy was indeed behind the Swedish case.
So, better to look at FOI in a light suggested by Nahal, in which the continuity of ideas and philosophy remains consistent to some degree, but the necessities and responses of a democratic society and state generate specific instances which bring about new assemblages of laws and techniques, accompanied by emergent technologies and social organizations.
Returning then to the assemblage I made some reference to, I want to further elucidate the administrative management movement of the 1930's and 1940's in the United States which led to new forms of bureaucratic structures and information flows, later bringing about a new technique called FOIA in 1966.
In America, as we understand it today, federal administration is under the joint custody of Congress and the President. However, this situation was not always the case, as Rosenbloom (2001) explains in his essay on a trio of administrative acts passed by Congress in 1946 which effectively re-appropriated control over federal administration by Congress. These laws include the Legislative Reorganization Act, the Employment Act, and the Administrative Procedures Act. Rosenbloom succinctly states: "The result was an institutionalized vision of 'legislative-centered' federal administration in which Congress treats the agencies as its extensions for legislative functions, supervises them, and intervenes in their decision making through casework and other forms of constituency service" (2001: 773).
As Nahal's informant stated, "[Democracies] create... preventative measures as problems arise, or when it is somehow attacked and endangered."
In a similar manner, the 1946 Congress was responding to its (over-)delegation of authority during the New Deal and WWII in combination with the development of an enormously powerful federal administration during the same period. Some legislators seriously discussed the necessity of Congress. The American democratic ideal of checks-and-balances was, in some sense, at stake.
Rosenbloom breaks the administrative reform into three components. One, the redefinition of agencies as extensions of Congress due to their legislative functions. Two, the need for agency oversight by Congress. And three, the ability of Congress to intercede in agency decision-making and interject district-specific and constituency-specific interests.
Most important for FOIA was the first component because if agencies were considered an extension of Congress legislative power, then they must be held to the same accountability as Congress. Further, they would be required to standardize their rule-making procedures. The APA, specifically, was intended to increase transparency amongst federal agencies. In 1966, as mentioned earlier, it was amended with FOIA, applicable only to federal agencies in the executive branch.
...
Posted by michael at 4 lutego 2005 17:58