Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen: Review of Domenico di Bernardo’s La pubblica amministrazione e la sociologia (1894)

Schullern’s review assesses the two published volumes of Bernardo’s still-unfinished work on public administration and sociology. It combines substantial admiration for the work’s architecture, learning, and ethical purpose with objections to its polemics and disciplinary claims. Its governing distinction is between endorsing Bernardo’s general project and accepting every argument offered in its support.

The review reconstructs Bernardo’s starting point: the state is society directed by government, while constitutional arrangements organize authority to secure the best possible legislation and administration. Administration is judged by the benefits it brings to the population, making collective welfare the basis of its connection to sociology:

Das Hauptziel der Verwaltung aber ist ein sociales, das heisst das möglichste Wohlergehen des ganzen zum Staate vereinigten Volkes; deshalb muss die Verwaltung auf der Sociologie aufgebaut sein.

English translation: The chief aim of administration, however, is a social one, that is to say the greatest possible welfare of the whole people united into a state; therefore administration must be built upon sociology.

The first volume develops these foundations through a study of the state’s nature, origins, and relationship to politics, followed by an examination of society in relation to law, natural science, and the state. Schullern praises its command of the literature but objects to Bernardo’s attacks on Schäffle, also noting his harsh treatment of Stein and Gneist. He accepts the methodological claim that the sciences of the state possess their own laws while remaining grounded in facts and experience; he refuses to make that autonomy a justification for dismissive polemics.

The second volume begins with the purposes of the state and the legitimacy of intervention in economic life. As Schullern presents it, Bernardo opposes both individualism and socialism: government must protect rights, but also support and improve individual and associational activity where general interests exceed private capacities. This expanding role follows a developmental conception of political society:

Je mehr sich der Staat und die Gesellschaft entwickeln, um so mehr erweitert sich der Kreis der Wirksamkeit des erstern; der Staat ist eine Einrichtung, die sich der vernünftigen Natur des Menschen gemäss ausgestalten und fortschreiten muss.

English translation: The more the state and society develop, the more the sphere of effectiveness of the former expands; the state is an institution which must shape itself and progress in accordance with the rational nature of man.

Political economy consequently supports the state’s social task through its relationship with ethics and jurisprudence. Here Schullern draws a significant disciplinary boundary. Reconciling wealth and justice is highly desirable, and might amount to resolving the social question, but it is not the proper objective of political economy as such. Social progress requires several harmonized forces rather than the unilateral extension of one science’s remit. His criticism thus qualifies Bernardo’s integrative ambition without rejecting its ethical purpose.

The review then follows the work into centralization and decentralization, administrative law, and the relationships of administrative science to statistics and sociology. Schullern finds important insights in the distinction between administration and administrative law, although excessive length weakens their presentation. His judgment remains deliberately provisional:

Da es sich vorliegenden Falles um ein noch nicht vollendetes Werk handelt, mögen im Folgenden wenige Worte genügen; eine eigentliche Kritik der Ideen und Beweisführungen des Autors wird ja erst dann möglich sein, wenn ihr Kreis geschlossen sein wird.

English translation: Since in the present case it is a question of a work not yet completed, a few words may suffice in what follows; a proper criticism of the author's ideas and demonstrations will indeed only be possible once their circle has been closed.

The anticipated second part must establish how much explanatory weight Bernardo places on the relationships already proposed. Schullern closes with renewed esteem for the author’s ability and commitment, tempered by a specific reservation about the one-sided, insufficiently firsthand account of German imperial administration. The review’s significance lies in this measured reception of a sociologically grounded administrative science: collective welfare legitimates the project, but disciplinary precision, empirical judgment, and completion of the argument remain conditions of its success.