text:
Jeffersonian democracy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Portrait of Thomas Jefferson by Rembrandt Peale in 1800
Jeffersonian democracy, named after its advocate Thomas Jefferson, was one of two dominant political outlooks and movements in the United States from the 1790s to the 1820s. The term was commonly used to refer to the Democratic-Republican Party, which Jefferson founded in opposition to the Federalist Party of Alexander Hamilton. The Jeffersonians were deeply committed to American republicanism, which meant opposition to aristocracy of any form, opposition to corruption, insistence on virtue, with a priority for the "yeoman farmer", "planters", and the "plain folk". They were antagonistic to the aristocratic elitism of merchants, bankers and manufacturers, distrusted factory workers, and were on the watch for supporters of the dreaded British system of government. Jeffersonian democracy persisted as an element of the Democratic Party into the early 20th century, as exemplified somewhat by the rise of Jacksonian democracy and the three presidential candidacies of William Jennings Bryan. Its themes continue to echo in the twenty-first century, although with more of a base in the Libertarian and Republican parties.[1][2]
At the beginning of the Jeffersonian era, only two states, Vermont and Kentucky, had established universal white male suffrage by abolishing property requirements. By the end of the period, more than half of the states had followed suit, including virtually all of the states in the Old Northwest. Also, states now moved on to allowing popular votes for Presidential elections, canvassing voters in a more modern style. Jefferson's party, known today as the Democratic-Republican Party, was now in full control of the apparatus of government, from the state legislature and city hall to the White House.
Contents
[hide]
1 Positions
1.1 Westward expansion
1.2 Economics
1.3 Limited government
2 Politics and factions
3 Jefferson and Jeffersonian principles
4 See also
5 Notes
6 Further reading
6.1 Historiography
Positions[edit]
Jefferson has been called "the most democratic of the Founding fathers."[3] The Jeffersonians advocated a narrow interpretation of the Constitution's Article I provisions granting powers to the federal government. They strenuously opposed the Federalist Party, led by Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton. President George Washington generally supported Hamilton's program for a financially strong national government. The election of Jefferson in 1800, which he called 'The revolution of 1800,' brought in the Presidency of Thomas Jefferson and the permanent eclipse of the Federalists, apart from the Supreme Court.[4]
"Jeffersonian democracy" is an umbrella term, and some factions favored some positions more than others. While principled, with vehemently held core beliefs, the Jeffersonians had factions that disputed the true meaning of their creed. For example, during the War of 1812, it became apparent that independent state militia units were inadequate for conducting a serious war against a major country. The new Secretary of War John C. Calhoun, a Jeffersonian, proposed to build up the Army. With the support of most Republicans in Congress he got his way.[5] However, the "Old Republican" faction, claiming to be true to the Jeffersonian Principles of '98, fought him and reduced the size of the Army after Spain sold Florida to the U.S.[6]
Historians characterize Jeffersonian democracy as including the following core ideals:
The core political value of America is republicanism; citizens have a civic duty to aid the state and resist corruption, especially monarchism and aristocracy.[7]
Jeffersonian values are best expressed through an organized political party. The Jeffersonian party was officially the "Republican Party" (political scientists later called it the Democratic-Republican Party to differentiate it from the later Republican Party of Lincoln.)[8]
It was the duty of citizens to vote, and the Jeffersonians invented many modern campaign techniques designed to get out the vote. Turnout indeed soared across the country.[9] The work of John J. Beckley, Jefferson's agent in Pennsylvania, set new standards in the 1790s. In the 1796 presidential election he blanketed the state with agents who passed out 30,000 hand-written tickets, naming all 15 electors (printed tickets were not allowed). Historians consider Beckley to be one of the first American professional campaign managers, and his techniques were quickly adopted in other states.[10]
The Federalist Party, especially its leader Alexander Hamilton, was the arch-foe, because of its acceptance of aristocracy and British methods.
The national government is a dangerous necessity to be instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation or community; it should be watched closely and circumscribed in its powers. Most Anti-Federalists from 1787–88 joined the Jeffersonians.[11]
Separation of church and state is the best method to keep government free of religious disputes, and religion free from corruption by government.[12]
The federal government must not violate the rights of individuals. The Bill of Rights is a central theme.[13]
The federal government must not violate the rights of the states. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 (written secretly by Jefferson and James Madison) proclaim these principles.[14]
Freedom of speech and the press are the best methods to prevent tyranny over the people by their own government. The Federalists' violation of this freedom through the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 became a major issue.[15]
The yeoman farmer best exemplifies civic virtue and independence from corrupting city influences; government policy should be for his benefit. Financiers, bankers and industrialists make cities the 'cesspools of corruption', and should be avoided.[16]
"We the People" in an original edition of the U.S. Constitution.
The United States Constitution was written in order to ensure the freedom of the people. However, as Jefferson wrote to James Madison in 1789, "no society can make a perpetual constitution or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation."[17]
All men have the right to be informed, and thus, to have a say in the government. The protection and expansion of human liberty was one of the chief goals of the Jeffersonians. They also reformed their respective state systems of education. They believed that their citizens had a right to an education no matter their circumstance or status in life.[18]
The judiciary should be subservient to the elected branches and the Supreme Court should not have the power to strike down laws passed by Congress. The Jeffersonians lost this battle to Chief Justice John Marshall, a Federalist, who dominated the Court from 1801 to his death in 1835.[19]
The Jeffersonians also had a distinct foreign policy:[20]
Americans had a duty to spread what Jefferson called the "Empire of Liberty" to the world, but should avoid "entangling alliances."[21]
Britain was the greatest threat, especially its monarchy, aristocracy, corruption, and business methods; the Jay Treaty of 1794 was much too favorable to Britain and thus threatened American values.[22]
France, at least in the early stages of the French Revolution, was the ideal European nation. According to Michael Hardt, ""Jefferson's support of the French Revolution often serves in his mind as a defense of republicanism against the monarchism of the Anglophiles."[23] Napoleon, on the other hand, was the antithesis of republicanism and could not be supported.[24]
Louisiana and the Mississippi River were critical to American national interests. Control by Spain was tolerable; control by France was unacceptable. See Louisiana Purchase.
A standing army and navy are dangerous to liberty and should be avoided; much better was to use economic coercion such as the embargo.[25] See Embargo Act of 1807.
The militia was adequate to defend the nation. During the Revolutionary War previously, a national conflict, in this case the War of 1812 required the creation of a national army for the duration of international hostilities.
Westward expansion[edit]
Territorial expansion of the United States was a major goal of the Jeffersonians because it would produce new farm lands for yeomen farmers. The Jeffersonians wanted to integrate the Indians into American society, or remove further west those tribes that refused to integrate. However Sheehan (1974) argues that the Jeffersonians, with the best of goodwill toward the Indians, destroyed their distinctive cultures with its misguided benevolence.[26]
The original treaty of the Louisiana Purchase
The Jeffersonians took enormous pride in the bargain they reached with France in the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. It opened up vast new fertile farmlands from Louisiana to Montana. Jefferson saw the west as an economic safety valve which would allow people in the crowded East to own farms.[27] However, established New England political interests feared the growth of the west. A majority in the Federalist Party opposed the purchase.[28] Jeffersonians, however, thought the new territory would help maintain their vision of the ideal republican society, based on agricultural commerce, governed lightly and promoting self-reliance and virtue.[29]
The Jeffersonians' dream did not come to pass. The Louisiana Purchase was a turning point in the history of American imperialism. The farmers with whom Jefferson identified conquered the west, often through violence against Native Americans. Jefferson himself sympathized with Native Americans, but that did not stop him from enacting policies that would continue the trend towards the dispossession of their lands.[30]
Economics[edit]
Jeffersonian agrarians held that the economy of the United States should rely more on agriculture for strategic commodities than on industry. Jefferson specifically believed, "Those who labor in the earth are the chosen people of God, if He ever had a chosen people, whose breast He has made His peculiar deposit for substantial and genuine virtue."[31] However, Jeffersonian ideals are not opposed to all manufacturing; rather, he believed that all people have the right to work to provide for their own subsistence and that an economic system which undermines that right is unacceptable.[32]
Jefferson's belief was that unlimited expansion of commerce and industry would lead to the growth of a class of wage laborers who relied on others for income and sustenance. The workers would no longer be independent voters. Such a situation, Jefferson feared, would leave the American people vulnerable to political subjugation and economic manipulation. The solution Jefferson came up with was, as scholar Clay Jenkinson noted, "a graduated income tax that would serve as a disincentive to vast accumulations of wealth and would make funds available for some sort of benign redistribution downward" as well as tariffs on imported articles, which were mainly purchased by the wealthy.[33][34]
Similarly, Jefferson was against international trade. He believed that not only would economic dependence on Europe diminish the virtue of the republic, but that the U.S. had an abundance of natural resources that Americans should be able to cultivate and use to tend to their own needs. Furthermore, exporting goods by merchant ships created risks of capture by foreign pirates and armies, which would require an expensive navy for protection.[35]
Limited government[edit]
Jefferson's thoughts on limited government were influenced by the 17th century English political philosopher John Locke (pictured)
While the Federalists advocated for a strong central government, Jeffersonians argued for strong state and local governments and a weak federal government.[36] Self-sufficiency, self-government, and individual responsibility, were, in the Jeffersonian worldview, among the most important ideals that formed the basis of the American Revolution. In Jefferson's opinion, nothing that could feasibly be accomplished by individuals at the local level ought to be accomplished by the federal government. The federal government would concentrate its efforts solely on national and international projects.[37] Jefferson's advocacy of limited government led to sharp disagreements with Federalist figures such as Alexander Hamilton. Jefferson felt that Hamilton favored plutocracy and the creation of a powerful aristocracy in the United States which would accumulate increasingly greater power until the political and social order of the United States became indistinguishable from those of the Old World.[36]
After initial skepticism, Jefferson supported the ratification of the United States Constitution and especially supported its stress on checks and balances. The ratification of the United States Bill of Rights, especially the First Amendment, gave Jefferson even greater confidence in the document.[36] Jeffersonians favored a strict construction interpretation of federal government powers described in Article I of the Constitution. For example, Jefferson once wrote a letter to Charles Willson Peale explaining that, although a Smithsonian-style national museum would be a wonderful resource, he could not support the use of federal funds to construct and maintain such a project.[37] The 'strict constructionism' of today is a remote descendant of Jefferson's views.
Politics and factions[edit]
James Madison
James Monroe
The spirit of Jeffersonian democracy dominated American politics from 1800 to 1824, the First Party System, under Jefferson and succeeding presidents James Madison and James Monroe. The Jeffersonians proved much more successful than the Federalists in building state and local party organizations that united various factions.[38] Voters in every state formed blocs loyal to the Jeffersonian coalition.[39]
Prominent spokesmen for Jeffersonian principles included Madison, Albert Gallatin, John Randolph of Roanoke, Nathaniel Macon, John Taylor of Caroline,[40] and James Monroe, as well as John C. Calhoun, John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay (with the last three taking new paths after 1828).
Randolph was the Jeffersonian leader in Congress from 1801–15; he later broke with Jefferson and formed his own "Tertium Quids" faction because he thought the president no longer adhered to the true Jeffersonian principles of 1798.[41] The Quids wanted to actively punish and discharge Federalists in the government and in the courts. Jefferson himself sided with the moderate faction exemplified by figures such as Madison, who were much more conciliatory towards Federalism.[35]
After the Madison administration experienced serious trouble financing the War of 1812, and discovered the Army and militia were unable to make war effectively, a new generation of Republican nationalists emerged. They were supported by President James Monroe, an original Jeffersonian, and included John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun. Adams defeated Andrew Jackson, who had support from the Quids, in 1824 and in a few years two successor parties had emerged, the Democratic Party, which formulated Jacksonian democracy and which still exists; and Henry Clay's Whig Party. Their competition marked the Second Party System.[42]
After 1830, the principles were still talked about but did not form the basis of a political party. Thus, editor Horace Greeley in 1838 started a magazine, The Jeffersonian, that he said "would exhibit a practical regard for that cardinal principle of Jeffersonian Democracy, and the People are the sole and safe depository of all power, principles and opinions which are to direct the Government."[43]
Jefferson and Jeffersonian principles[edit]
Jeffersonian democracy was not a one-man operation. It was a large political party with many local and state leaders, and various factions, and they did not always agree with Jefferson or with each other.[44]
Jefferson was accused of inconsistencies by his opponents.[45] The "Old Republicans" said that he abandoned the Principles of 1798. He believed the national security concerns were so urgent that it was necessary to purchase Louisiana without waiting for a Constitutional amendment. He enlarged federal power through the intrusively-enforced Embargo Act of 1807. He idealized the "yeoman farmer" despite being himself a gentleman plantation owner. The disparities between Jefferson's philosophy and practice have been noted by numerous historians: Staaloff proposed that it was due to his being a proto-Romantic;[46] John Quincy Adams claimed that it was a manifestation of pure hypocrisy, or 'pliability of principle;'[47] and Bailyn asserts it simply represented a contradiction with Jefferson, that he was “simultaneously a radical utopian idealist and a hardheaded, adroit, at times cunning politician.”[48] However, Jenkinson argued that Jefferson's personal failings ought not to influence present day thinkers to disregard Jeffersonian ideals.[49]
Kuehnelt-Leddihn, a European nobleman who opposed democracy, argues that "Jeffersonian democracy" is a misnomer, because Jefferson was not a democrat but in fact believed in rule by an elite: "Jefferson actually was an Agrarian Romantic who dreamt of a republic governed by an elite of character and intellect."[50]
Historian Sean Wilentz argues that as a practical politician elected to serve the people Jefferson had to negotiate solutions, not insist on his own version of abstract positions. The result, Wilentz argues, was "flexible responses to unforeseen events...in pursuit of ideals ranging from the enlargement of opportunities for the mass of ordinary, industrious Americans to the principled avoidance of war."[51]
Historians have long portrayed the contest between Jefferson and Hamilton as iconic for the politics, political philosophy, economic policies and future direction of the United States. Wilentz in 2010 identified a scholarly trend in Hamilton's favor:
"In recent years, Hamilton and his reputation have decidedly gained the initiative among scholars who portray him as the visionary architect of the modern liberal capitalist economy and of a dynamic federal government headed by an energetic executive. Jefferson and his allies, by contrast, have come across as naïve, dreamy idealists. At best according to many historians, the Jeffersonians were reactionary utopians who resisted the onrush of capitalist modernity in hopes of turning America into a yeoman farmers' arcadia. At worst, they were proslavery racists who wish to rid the West of Indians, expand the empire of slavery, and keep political power in local hands – all the better to expand the institution of slavery and protect slaveholders' rights to own human property."[52]
See also[edit]
Bibliography of Thomas Jefferson
First Party System
Jacksonian democracy
American election campaigns in the 19th century
Republicanism in the United States
Democratic-Republican Party
Notes[edit]
Jump up ^ William S. Dietrich (2008). In the Shadow of the Rising Sun: The Political Roots of American Economic Decline. Penn State Press. p. 165.
Jump up ^ Jeff Taylor, Where Did the Party Go?: William Jennings Bryan, Hubert Humphrey, and the Jeffersonian Legacy (2006)
Jump up ^ Michael Kazin, et al. eds. The Concise Princeton Encyclopedia of American Political History (2011) p. 149
Jump up ^ James J. Horn, Jan Ellen Lewis and Peter S. Onuf, eds. The Revolution of 1800: Democracy, Race, and the New Republic (2002)
Jump up ^ Leonard D. White, The Jeffersonians: A study in administrative history 1801–1829 (1951) pp. 214, 248–49
Jump up ^ Fitzgerald, Michael S. (1996). "Rejecting Calhoun's Expansible Army Plan: the Army Reduction Act of 1821". War in History. 3 (2): 161–85. doi:10.1177/096834459600300202.
Jump up ^ Lance Banning, Jeffersonian Persuasion: Evolution of a Party Ideology (1978) pp. 79–90
Jump up ^ Noble E. Cunningham, The Jeffersonian party to 1801: a study of the formation of a party organization (1952)
Jump up ^ Sean Wilentz, The Rise of American democracy (2006) pp. 138–39
Jump up ^ Jeffrey L. Pasley, "'A Journeyman, Either in Law or Politics': John Beckley and the Social Origins of Political Campaigning," Journal of the Early Republic Vol. 16, No. 4 (Winter, 1996), pp. 531–69 in JSTOR
Jump up ^ Banning (1978) pp. 105–15
Jump up ^ Philip Hamburger, Separation of church and state (2002)
Jump up ^ Robert Allen Rutland; The Birth of the Bill of Rights, 1776–1791 (1955)
Jump up ^ Banning (1978) pp. 264–66
Jump up ^ Banning (1978) pp. 255–66
Jump up ^ Elkins and McKitrick. (1995) ch 5; Wallace Hettle, The Peculiar Democracy: Southern Democrats in Peace and Civil War (2001) p. 15
Jump up ^ Jefferson letter to James Madison, September 6, 1789 | http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl81.htm
Jump up ^ Roy J. Honeywell, "A Note on the Educational Work of Thomas Jefferson," History of Education Quarterly, Winter 1969, Vol. 9 Issue 1, pp. 64–72 in JSTOR
Jump up ^ R. Kent Newmyer, John Marshall and the Heroic Age of the Supreme Court (2001)
Jump up ^ Robert W. Tucker and David C. Hendrickson, Empire of Liberty: The Statecraft of Thomas Jefferson (1990).
Jump up ^ Lawrence S. Kaplan, Entangling alliances with none: American foreign policy in the age of Jefferson (1987)
Jump up ^ Todd Estes, The Jay Treaty Debate, Public Opinion, and the Evolution of Early American Political Culture (2006)
Jump up ^ Michael Hardt, "Jefferson and Democracy," American Quarterly 59.1 (2007) pp. 41–78, quote on p. 63
Jump up ^ Merrill D. Peterson, "Thomas Jefferson and the French Revolution," Tocqueville Review – La Revue Tocqueville, Jan 1987, Vol. 9, pp. 15–25
Jump up ^ Banning (1978) pp. 292–93
Jump up ^ Bernard W. Sheehan, Seeds of Extinction: Jeffersonian Philanthropy and the American Indian (1974)
Jump up ^ The Lewis & Clark, Fort Mandan Foundation. "Show 1048 – Redistribution." The Thomas Jefferson Hour. Prairie Public Radio: 27 October 2013. Web. 30 October 2013.
Jump up ^ Junius P. Rodriguez, The Louisiana Purchase: A Historical and Geographical Encyclopedia (2002) pp. 106, 253–54
Jump up ^ White, Richard (1991). "It's your misfortune and none of my own" : a new history of the American West. University of Oklahoma Press. p. 63. ISBN 0-8061-2366-4.
Jump up ^ Jenkinson. "#1247 On My Doorstep." Podcast. The Thomas Jefferson Hour. The Thomas Jefferson Hour, 15 August 2017. Web. 17 August 2017.
Jump up ^ Thomas Jefferson (1900). John P. Foley, ed. The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia: A Comprehensive Collection Of The Views Of Thomas Jefferson Classified And Arranged In Alphabetical Order Under Nine Thousand Titles Relating To Government, Politics, Law, Education, Political Economy, Finance, Science, Art, Literature, Religious Freedom, Morals, Etc. Funk & Wagnalls company. p. 323. Retrieved 26 March 2010.
Jump up ^ Jenkinson, Becoming Jefferson's People, p. 27
Jump up ^ Jenkinson, Becoming Jefferson's People, p. 26
Jump up ^ Jefferson, "The Jeffersonian cyclopedia."
These revenues will be levied entirely on the rich .... The Rich alone use imported article, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied. The poor man ... pays not a farthing of tax to the General Government, but on his salt; and should we go into that manufacture also, as is probable, he will pay nothing.
^ Jump up to: a b Jenkinson. "#1253 Second Term." Podcast. The Thomas Jefferson Hour. The Thomas Jefferson Hour, 26 September 2017. Web. 26 August 2017.
^ Jump up to: a b c Ketcham, p. 259
^ Jump up to: a b Jenkinson, Becoming Jefferson's People, pp. 36–38
Jump up ^ Noble E. Cunningham Jr. The Jeffersonian Republicans in Power: Party Operations, 1801–1809 (1963)
Jump up ^ See Andrew W. Robertson, "Afterword: Reconceptualizing Jeffersonian Democracy," Journal of the Early Republic (2013) 33#2 pp. 317–34 on recent voting studies.
Jump up ^ Benjamin F. Wright, "The Philosopher of Jeffersonian Democracy," American Political Science Review Vol. 22, No. 4 (Nov. 1928), pp. 870–92 in JSTOR
Jump up ^ David A. Carson, "That Ground Called Quiddism: John Randolph's War with the Jefferson Administration," Journal of American Studies, (1986) 20-#1 pp. 71–92
Jump up ^ Richard P. McCormick, The Second American Party System: Party Formation in the Jacksonian Era (1966).
Jump up ^ Editorial, The Jeffersonian 1838 vol. 1 p. 287
Jump up ^ Padraig Riley, Northern Republicans and southern slavery: Democracy in the age of Jefferson, 1800–1819 (2007) p. 161
Jump up ^ Robert M. Johnstone, Jefferson and the Presidency: leadership in the young Republic (1978) p. 44
Jump up ^ Staaloff, Hamilton, Adams, Jefferson, pp. 285–92
Jump up ^ Bernard Bailyn, To Begin the World Anew: The Genius and Ambiguities of the American Founders (2004) p. 38
Jump up ^ Bailyn, p. 45
Jump up ^ Jenkinson, Becoming Jefferson's People, p. 8
Jump up ^ Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn. Liberty or Equality: The Challenge of Our Time (1952) p. 7
Jump up ^ Sean Wilentz, The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln (2006) p. 136
Jump up ^ Sean Wilentz, "Book Reviews," Journal of American History Sept. 2010 v. 97# 2 p. 476.
Further reading[edit]
Banning, Lance. The Jeffersonian Persuasion: Evolution of a Party Ideology (1978)
Banning, Lance. "Jeffersonian Ideology Revisited: Liberal and Classical Ideas in the New American Republic," William and Mary Quarterly (1986) 43#1 pp. 3–19 in JSTOR
Beard, Charles A. "Some Economic Origins of Jeffersonian Democracy." American Historical Review 19#2 (1914): pp. 282–98; Summary of this famous book; in JSTOR
Brown; Stuart Gerry. The First Republicans: Political Philosophy and Public Policy in the Party of Jefferson and Madison (1954) online
Elkins, Stanley M. and Eric L. McKitrick. The Age of Federalism: The Early American Republic, 1788–1800 (1995), the standard political history of the 1790s
Hendrickson, David C. and Robert W. Tucker. Empire of Liberty: the statecraft of Thomas Jefferson (1990); His foreign policy
Jefferson, Thomas. "The Jeffersonian cyclopedia: a ...". topical compendium of Jefferson's statements and quotes
Ketcham, Ralph. "Jefferson, Thomas." The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 1967.
Parrington, Vernon. Main Currents in American Thought (1927) v 2 online
Pasley, Jeff. The Tyranny of Printers. [1]
Peterson, Merrill D. The Jefferson Image in the American Mind (1960)
Robinson, William A. Jeffersonian democracy in New England (Yale U.P. 1916) online
Taylor, Jeff. Where Did the Party Go?: William Jennings Bryan, Hubert Humphrey, and the Jeffersonian Legacy (2006)
Wilentz, Sean. The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln (2005)
Wilentz, Sean. "Jeffersonian democracy and the origins of political antislavery in the United States: The Missouri crisis revisited." Journal of the Historical Society 4#3 (2004): pp. 375–401.
Wiltse, Charles Maurice. The Jeffersonian Tradition in American Democracy (1935)
Wiltse, Charles M. "Jeffersonian Democracy: a Dual Tradition." American Political Science Review (1934) 28#05 pp. 838–51. in JSTOR
Wright, Benjamin F. "The Philosopher of Jeffersonian Democracy." American Political Science Review 22#4 (1928): pp. 870–92. in JSTOR
Historiography[edit]
Cogliano, Francis D. ed. A Companion to Thomas Jefferson (2012), 648 pp; 34 essays by scholars focusing on how historians have handled Jefferson. online
Robertson, Andrew W. "Afterword: Reconceptualizing Jeffersonian Democracy," Journal of the Early Republic (2013) 33#2 pp. 317–34 on recent voting studies online
[show]
v
t
e
History of the United States
Timeline
Prehistory
Pre-Columbian
Colonial
1776–89
1789–1849
1849–65
1865–1918
1918–45
1945–64
1964–80
1980–91
1991–2008
2008–present
Topics
American Century
Cities
Constitution
Demographic
Diplomatic
Economic
Education
Immigration
Medical
Merchant Marine
Military
Musical
Religious
Slavery
Southern
Technological and industrial
Territorial acquisitions
Territorial evolution
Voting rights
Women
Category
Portal
[hide]
v
t
e
Thomas Jefferson
3rd President of the United States (1801–1809)
2nd U.S. Vice President (1797–1801)
1st U.S. Secretary of State (1790–1793)
U.S. Minister to France (1785–1789)
2nd Governor of Virginia (1779–1781)
Delegate, Second Continental Congress (1775–1776)
Founding
documents of
the United States
A Summary View of the Rights of British America (1774)
Initial draft, Olive Branch Petition (1775)
Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms (1775)
1776 Declaration of Independence
Committee of Five
authored
physical history
"All men are created equal"
"Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness"
"Consent of the governed"
1786 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom
freedom of religion
French Revolution
Co-author, Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789)
Presidency
Inaugural Address (1801
1805)
Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves
Louisiana Purchase
Lewis and Clark Expedition
Corps of Discovery
timeline
Empire of Liberty
Red River Expedition
Pike Expedition
Cumberland Road
Embargo Act of 1807
Chesapeake–Leopard Affair
Non-Intercourse Act of 1809
First Barbary War
Native American policy
Marbury v. Madison
West Point Military Academy
State of the Union Addresses (texts
1801
1802
1805)
Cabinet
Federal judicial appointments
Other noted
accomplishments
Early life and career
Founder, University of Virginia
history
Land Ordinance of 1784
Northwest Ordinance 1787
Anti-Administration party
Democratic-Republican Party
Jeffersonian democracy
First Party System
republicanism
Plan for Establishing Uniformity in the Coinage, Weights, and Measure of the United States (1790)
Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions
A Manual of Parliamentary Practice (1801)
Jeffersonian
architecture
Barboursville
Farmington
Monticello
gardens
Poplar Forest
University of Virginia
The Rotunda
The Lawn
Virginia State Capitol
White House Colonnades
Other writings
Notes on the State of Virginia (1785)
1787 European journey memorandums
Indian removal letters
Jefferson Bible (1895)
Jefferson manuscript collection at the Massachusetts Historical Society
Related
Age of Enlightenment
American Enlightenment
American Philosophical Society
American Revolution
patriots
Member, Virginia Committee of Correspondence
Committee of the States
Founding Fathers of the United States
Franco-American alliance
Jefferson and education
Religious views
Jefferson and slavery
Jefferson and the Library of Congress
Jefferson disk
Jefferson Pier
Pet mockingbird
National Gazette
Residence Act
Compromise of 1790
Sally Hemings
Jefferson–Hemings controversy
Betty Hemings
Separation of church and state
Swivel chair
The American Museum magazine
Virginia dynasty
Elections
United States Presidential election 1796
1800
1804
Legacy
Bibliography
Jefferson Memorial
Mount Rushmore
Birthday
Thomas Jefferson Building
Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression
Jefferson Lecture
Jefferson National Expansion Memorial
Thomas Jefferson Star for Foreign Service
Jefferson Lab
Monticello Association
Jefferson City, Missouri
Jefferson College
Thomas Jefferson School of Law
Thomas Jefferson University
Washington and Jefferson National Forests
Other placenames
Currency depictions
Jefferson nickel
Two-dollar bill
U.S. postage stamps
Popular culture
Ben and Me (1953 short)
1776 (1969 musical
1972 film)
Jefferson in Paris (1995 film)
Thomas Jefferson (1997 film)
Liberty! (1997 documentary series)
Liberty's Kids (2002 animated series)
John Adams (2008 miniseries)
Jefferson's Garden (2015 play)
Hamilton (2015 musical)
Jefferson–Eppes Trophy
Wine bottles controversy
Family
Peter Jefferson (father)
Jane Randolph Jefferson (mother)
Lucy Jefferson Lewis (sister)
Randolph Jefferson (brother)
Isham Randolph (grandfather)
William Randolph (great-grandfather)
Martha Jefferson (wife)
Martha Jefferson Randolph (daughter)
Mary Jefferson Eppes (daughter)
Harriet Hemings (daughter)
Madison Hemings (son)
Eston Hemings (son)
Thomas J. Randolph (grandson)
Francis Eppes (grandson)
George W. Randolph (grandson)
John Wayles Jefferson (grandson)
Thomas Mann Randolph Jr. (son-in-law)
John Wayles Eppes (son-in-law)
John Wayles (father-in-law)
Dabney Carr (brother-in-law)
Dabney Carr (nephew)
← John Adams
James Madison →
Category
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeffersonian_democracy&oldid=802584738"
Categories:
Thomas Jefferson
Democracy
Eponymous political ideologies
Classical liberalism
Political positions of state governors of the United States
Political positions of Presidents of the United States
Political history of the United States
American political philosophy
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Euskara
فارسی
日本語
Português
ไทย
Edit links
This page was last edited on 27 September 2017, at 03:06.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

key: html

type: local

value: div

attrs: id class

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

value: a

attrs: id class lang

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

value: img

attrs: alt src width height class srcset data-file-width data-file-height

attrs: href class

attrs: href class title

attrs: href title

attrs: class style

value: b

values:
/wiki/Yeoman_farmer
mw-redirect
Yeoman farmer

values:
/wiki/History_of_the_Democratic_Party
mw-redirect
History of the Democratic Party

values:
/wiki/Old_Northwest
mw-redirect
Old Northwest

values: Article One of the United States Constitution

values: United States presidential election, 1800

values:
/wiki/Individual_liberty
mw-redirect
Individual liberty

values:
/wiki/Economic_coercion
mw-redirect
Economic coercion

values: Territorial expansion of the United States of America

values: Ratification of the United States Constitution

values:
/wiki/Checks_and_balances
mw-redirect
Checks and balances

values: First Amendment to the United States Constitution

values:
/wiki/Tertium_Quids
mw-redirect
Tertium Quids

values: History of the Democratic Party (United States)

values: Edit section: Jefferson and Jeffersonian principles

values: American election campaigns in the 19th century

values: Democratic-Republican Party (United States)

values:
nofollow
external text
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3124417

values:
nofollow
external text
https://www.jstor.org/pss/367130

values:
nofollow
external text
http://jeffersonhour.com/blog/1247

values:
nofollow
external text
http://jeffersonhour.com/blog/1253

values:
nofollow
external text
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1945352

values:
nofollow
external text
https://mises.org/books/liberty.pdf

values: -moz-column-width: 30em; -webkit-column-width: 30em; column-width: 30em; list-style-type: decimal;

values:
nofollow
external text
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1919354

values:
nofollow
external text
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1862288

values:
nofollow
external text
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1947407

values: History of the United States (1789–1849)

values: History of the United States (1865–1918)

values: History of the United States (1991–2008)

values: History of the United States (2008–present)

values: Category:Histories of cities in the United States

values: History of the United States Constitution

values: Demographic history of the United States

values: Timeline of United States diplomatic history

values: History of education in the United States

values: History of immigration to the United States

values: History of medicine in the United States

values: History of the United States Merchant Marine

values: History of religion in the United States

values: Technological and industrial history of the United States

values: Territorial evolution of the United States

values: nowraplinks hlist collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner

values: List of Vice Presidents of the United States

values: List of Secretaries of State of the United States

values: A Summary View of the Rights of British America

values: United States Declaration of Independence

values: Physical history of the United States Declaration of Independence

values: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

values: T Jefferson by Charles Willson Peale 1791 2.jpg

values:
navbox-image
11
width:1px;padding:0px 0px 0px 2px

values: s:Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Address

values: s:Thomas Jefferson's Second Inaugural Address

values: Timeline of the Lewis and Clark Expedition

values:
/wiki/Chesapeake%E2%80%93Leopard_Affair
mw-redirect
Chesapeake–Leopard Affair

values: History of the United States Military Academy

values: List of federal judges appointed by Thomas Jefferson

values: Early life and career of Thomas Jefferson

values: Plan for Establishing Uniformity in the Coinage, Weights, and Measures of the United States

values: Memorandums taken on a journey from Paris into the southern parts of France and Northern Italy, in the year 1787

values: Separation of church and state in the United States

values: United States presidential election, 1796

values: United States presidential election, 1804

values: Thomas Jefferson Star for Foreign Service

values: Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility

values: George Washington and Jefferson National Forests

values: List of places named for Thomas Jefferson

values: List of Presidents of the United States on currency

values: Presidents of the United States on U.S. postage stamps

values: nowraplinks hlist collapsible expanded navbox-inner

values: Category:Political positions of state governors of the United States

values: Category:Political positions of Presidents of the United States

values: Category:Political history of the United States

values:
catlinks mw-normal-catlinks
catlinks mw-normal-catlinks
interface

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values:
/wiki/Jeffersonian_democracy
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Find background information on current events

values:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

values: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

values: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

values: About the project, what you can do, where to find things

values: A list of recent changes in the wiki [ctrl-alt-r]

values: portal navigation p-interaction p-interaction-label

values: List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page [ctrl-alt-j]

values: Recent changes in pages linked from this page [ctrl-alt-k]

values:
/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard
Upload files [ctrl-alt-u]
u

values: A list of all special pages [ctrl-alt-q]

values: Permanent link to this revision of the page

values: Link to connected data repository item [ctrl-alt-g]

values: Printable version of this page [ctrl-alt-p]

values:
uls-settings-trigger
Language settings
0
button
true

values: دموکراسی جفرسونی – Persian

values: ジェファーソン流民主主義 – Japanese

values: ประชาธิปไตยแนวเจฟเฟอร์สัน – Thai

values: /static/images/wikimedia-button-1.5x.png 1.5x, /static/images/wikimedia-button-2x.png 2x

values: /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_132x47.png 1.5x, /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_176x62.png 2x

values:
suggestions
display: none; font-size: 13px;

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Jeffersonian_democracy rootpage-Jeffersonian_democracy vector-experimental-print-styles vector-nav-directionality skin-vector action-view


text:
New public management
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
New Public Management (NPM) is an approach to running public service organizations that is used in government and public service institutions and agencies, at both sub-national and national levels. The term was first introduced by academics in the UK and Australia [1] to describe approaches that were developed during the 1980s as part of an effort to make the public service more "businesslike" and to improve its efficiency by using private sector management models. As with the private sector, which focuses on "customer service", NPM reforms often focused on the "...centrality of citizens who were the recipient of the services or customers to the public sector." [2] NPM reformers experimented with using decentralized service delivery models, to give local agencies more freedom in how they delivered programs or services. In some cases, NPM reforms that used e-government consolidated a program or service to a central location to reduce costs. Some governments tried using quasi-market structures, so that the public sector would have to compete against the private sector (notably in the UK, in health care). [3]Key themes in NPM were "...financial control, value for money, increasing efficiency...,identifying and setting targets and continuance monitoring of performance, handing over.. power to the senior management" executives. Performance was assessed with audits, benchmarks and performance evaluations. Some NPM reforms used private sector companies to deliver what were formerly public services.[4]
NPM advocates in some countries worked to remove "...collective agreements [in favour of]...individual rewards packages at senior levels combined with short term contracts" and introduce private sector-style corporate governance, including using a Board of Directors approach to strategic guidance for public organizations.[5] While NPM approaches have been used in many in countries around the world, NPM is particularly associated with the most industrialized OECD nations such as the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States of America. NPM advocates focus on using approaches from the private sector–the corporate or business world–which can be successfully applied in the public sector and in a public administration context. NPM approaches have been used to reform the public sector, its policies and its programs. NPM advocates claim that it is a more efficient and effective means of attaining the same outcome.
In NPM, citizens are viewed as "customers" and public servants are viewed as public managers. NPM tries to realign the relationship between public service managers and their political superiors by making a parallel relationship between the two. Under NPM, public managers have incentive-based motivation such as pay-for-performance, and clear performance targets are often set, which are assessed by using performance evaluations. As well, managers in an NPM paradigm may have greater discretion and freedom as to how they go about achieving the goals set for them. This NPM approach is contrasted with the traditional public administration model, in which institutional decision-making, policy-making and public service delivery is guided by regulations, legislation and administrative procedures.
NPM reforms use approaches such as disaggregation, customer satisfaction initiatives, customer service efforts, applying an entrepreneurial spirit to public service, and introducing innovations. The NPM system allows "the expert manager to have a greater discretion."[6][7] "Public Managers under the New Public Management reforms can provide a range of choices from which customers can choose, including the right to opt out of the service delivery system completely".[8]
Contents
[hide]
1 History
2 Globalization
3 Aspects
3.1 Management
3.2 Performance standards
3.3 Output controls
3.4 Decentralization
3.5 Competition
3.6 Private-sector management
3.7 Cost reduction
4 Differences between public and private sectors
5 Issues
5.1 Criticisms
5.1.1 Relevance
5.2 Alternatives
5.3 Comparisons to New Public Administration
6 Further reading
7 References
History[edit]
The first practices of New Public Management emerged in the United Kingdom under the leadership of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Thatcher played the functional role of “policy entrepreneur" and the official role of prime minister.[citation needed] Thatcher drove changes in public management policy in such areas as organizational methods, civil service, labor relations, expenditure planning, financial management, audit, evaluation, and procurement. Thatcher's successor, John Major, kept public management policy on the agenda of the Conservative government, leading to the implementation of the Next Steps Initiative. Major also launched the programs of the Citizens Charter Initiative, Competing for Quality, Resource Accounting and Budgeting, and the Private Finance Initiative.
A term was coined in the late 1980s to denote a new (or renewed) focus on the importance of management and ‘production engineering’ in public service delivery, which often linked to doctrines of economic rationalism (Hood 1989, Pollitt 1993). During this timeframe public management became an active area of policy-making in numerous other countries, notably in New Zealand, Australia, and Sweden. At the same time, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) established its Public Management Committee and Secretariat (PUMA), conferring to public management the status normally accorded more conventional domains of policy. In the 1990s, public management was a major item on President Clinton’s agenda. Early policy actions of the Clinton administration included launching the National Partnership and signing into law the Government Performance and Results Act. Currently there are few indications that public management issues will vanish from governmental policy agendas. A recent study showed that in Italy, municipal directors are aware of a public administration now being oriented toward new public management where they are assessed according to the results they produce.[9]
The term New Public Management (NPM) expresses the idea that the cumulative flow of policy decisions over the past twenty years has amounted to a substantial shift in the governance and management of the “state sector” in the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia, Scandinavia, and North America. A benign interpretation is that these decisions have been a defensible, if imperfect, response to policy problems. Those problems as well as their solutions were formulated within the policy-making process. The agenda-setting process has been heavily influenced by electoral commitments to improve macro- economic performance and to contain growth in the public sector, as well as by a growing perception of public bureaucracies as being inefficient. The alternative-generation process has been heavily influenced by ideas coming from economics and from various quarters within the field of management.
Globalization[edit]
Although the origins of NPM came from Westernized countries it expanded to a variety of other countries in the 1990s. Before the 1990s, NPM was largely associated to an idea utilized by developed countries that are particularly Anglo-Saxon. However the 1990s have seen countries in Africa, Asia and other countries looking into using this method. In Africa, downsizing and decrease of user fees have been widely introduced. These autonomous agencies within the public sectors have been established in these areas. Performance contracting became a common policy in crisis states worldwide. Contracting out of this magnitude can be used to do things such as waste management, cleaning, laundry, catering and road maintenance.
Aspects[edit]
NPM was accepted as the "gold standard for administrative reform"[10] in the 1990s. The idea for using this method for government reform was that if the government guided private-sector principles were used rather than rigid hierarchical bureaucracy, it would work more efficiently. NPM promotes a shift from bureaucratic administration to business-like professional management. NPM was cited as the solution for management ills in various organizational context and policy making in education and health care reform.
The basic principles of NPM is can best be described when split into seven different aspects elaborated by Christopher Hood in 1991. Hood also invented the term NPM itself. [11] They are the following:
Management[edit]
Because of its belief in the importance and strength of privatizing government, it is critical to have an emphasis on management by engaging in hands-on methods. This theory allows leaders the freedom to manage freely and open up discretion.
Performance standards[edit]
Its important to maintain explicit standards and measures of performance in a workforce. Using this method promotes clarification of goals/intent, targets, and indicators for progression.
Output controls[edit]
The third point acknowledges the "shift from the use of input controls and bureaucratic procedures to rules relying on output controls measured by quantitive performance indicators".[12] This aspect requires using performance based assessments when looking to outsource work to private companies/groups.
Decentralization[edit]
NPM advocates often shifted from a unified management system to a decentralized system in which managers gain flexibility and are not limited to agency restrictions.
Competition[edit]
This characteristic focuses on how NPM can promote competition in the public sector which could in turn lower cost, eliminate debate and possibly achieve a higher quality of progress/work through the term contacts. Competition can also be found when the government offers contracts to the private sectors and the contract is given in terms of the ability to deliver the service effectively, quality of the goods provided, hence this will increase competition because the other private sector which did not get the contract will make strides to improve the quality and ability thereby facilitating competition.
Private-sector management[edit]
This aspect focuses on the necessity to establish short-term labor contracts, develop corporate plans or business plans, performance agreements and mission statements. It also focuses on establishing a workplace in which public employees or contractors are aware of the goals and intention that agencies are trying to reach.
Cost reduction[edit]
The most effective one which has led to its ascent into global popularity, focuses on keeping cost low and efficiency high. "Doing more with less" [13] moreover cost reduction stimulates efficiency and is one way which makes it different from the traditional approach of management[14]
Differences between public and private sectors[edit]
New Public Management draws practices from the private sector and uses them in the public sector of management. NPM reforms use market forces to hold the public sector accountable and the satisfaction of preferences as the measures of accountability. In order for this system to proceed, certain conditions, such as the existence of competition, must exist and information about choices must be available.[15] Reforms that promise to reinvent government by way of focusing on results and customer satisfaction as opposed to administrative and political processes fail to account for legislative self-interest. Institutions other than federal government, the changes being trumpeted as reinvention would not even be announced, except perhaps on hallway bulletin boards.
Issues[edit]
Criticisms[edit]
There are blurred lines between policymaking and providing services in the New Public Management system. Questions have been raised about the potential politicization of the public service, when executives are hired on contract under pay-for-performance systems. There are concerns that public managers may move away from trying to meet citizens' needs. NPM brings to question integrity and compliance when dealing with incentives for public managers. Questions such as managers being more or less faithful arise. The public interest is at risk and could undermine the trust in government. Accountability can be a big issue.[16]
Relevance[edit]
Although NPM had a dramatic impact in the 1990s on managing and policymaking, many scholars believe that NPM has hit its prime. Scholars like Frank Dunleavy believe New Public Management is phasing out because of disconnect with “customers” and their institutions. Scholars cite the Digital Era and the new importance of technology that kills the necessity of NPM. In countries that are less industrialized the NPM concept is still growing and spreading. This trend has much to do with a country's ability or inability to get their public sector in tune with the Digital Era. New Public Management was created in the Public Sector to create change based on: disaggregation, competition, and incentives. Using incentives to produce the maximum services from an organization is largely stalled in many countries and being reversed because of increased complexity.[17]
Alternatives[edit]
Post-NPM, many countries explored digital era governance (DEG). Dunleavy believes this new way of governance should be heavily centered upon information and technology.[18] Technology will help re-integrate with digitalization changes. Digital Era Governance provides a unique opportunity for self- sustainability however, there are various factors that will determine whether or not DEG can be implemented successfully. When countries have proper technology, NPM simply can't compete very well with DEG. DEG does an excellent job of making services more accurate, prompt and remove most barriers and conflicts. DEG also can improve the service quality and provide local access to outsourcers.
Comparisons to New Public Administration[edit]
New Public Management is often mistakingly compared to New Public Administration. The ‘New Public Administration’ movement was one established in the USA during the late 1960s and early 1970s.[19] Though there may be some common features, the central themes of the two movements are different. The main thrust of the New Public Administration movement was to bring academic public administration into line with a radical egalitarian agenda that was influential in US university campuses. By contrast, the emphasis of the New Public Management movement a decade or so later was firmly managerial in the sense that it stressed the difference that management could and should make the quality and efficiency of public services. It focuses on public service production functions and operational issues contrasted with the focus on public accountability, ‘model employer’ public service values, ‘due process,’ and what happens inside public organizations in conventional public administration. That meant New Public Management doctrines tended to be opposed to egalitarian ideas of managing without managers, juridical doctrines of rigidly rule-bound administration and doctrines of self-government by public-service professionals like teachers and doctors.
The table below gives a side-by-side comparison of the two systems core aspects/characteristics
New Public Management
New Public Administration
Hands on approach Hierarchy and rules
Explicit standards Apolitical, non-partisan civil service
Emphasis on output control Internal regulations
Disconnection of units Equality (Equity?)
Importance of the private sector Importance of public sector
Improve timing Stability
Greater usage of money
Further reading[edit]
Andrews, Rhys and Steven Van de Walle (2013). ″New Public Management and Citizens' Perceptions of Local Service Efficiency, Responsiveness, Equity and Effectiveness.″ Public Management Review. Retrieved March 9, 2015.
Daft, R., & Marcic, D. (2014). Building management skills: An action-first approach. South-Western Cengage Learning.
Eckerd, Adam; Heidelberg, Roy L. (YEAR). “Public Incentives, Market Motivations, and Contaminated Properties: New Public Management and Brownfield Liability Reform.” Public Administration Review. Retrieved March 10, 2015.
Gruening, G. (n.d.). Origin and theoretical basis of new public management. International Public Management Journal.
Holland, Kelley. ″Under New Management: How Office Politics and Real Politics Can Mix.″ nytimes.com. New York Times, 8 Oct. 2006. Web. 9 March 2015.
Horton, Sylvia, ed. New Public Management: Its Impact on Public Servants' Identity. Bradford, 2006. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 9 March 2015.
Jouke de Vries.”Is New Public Management Dead” oecd.org. OECD, June 2013. Web. 10 March 2015.
Lane, Jan-Erik. New Public Management. London, 2000. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 9 March 2015.
Morales Casetti, M. (2014). New Public Management in Chile: Origins and Effects. Revista de Ciencia Politica, 417-438.
Navarra, Diego D.; Cornford, Tony. “The State and Democracy After New Public Management: Exploring Alternative Models of E-Governance.” Information Society. Vol. 28 Issue 1 (Jan/Feb2012) p37-45. 9p. 1 Chart. DOI: 10.1080/01972243.2012.632264. Web. 10 March 2015.
Raes, Koen.” Ethics & Accountability in a Context of Governance & New Public Management.” Vol. 7, (1998) p.197-206. 10p. 1 Chart. Web. 10 March 2015.
Riccucci, N. M. (2001, March). The "Old" Public Management versus the "New" Public Management: Where does Public Administration Fit in? Public Administration Review, 61(2), 172-175. Retrieved from jstor.
Schachter, Hindy.”New Public Management and Principals' Roles in Organizational Governance: What Can a Corporate Issue Tell us About Public Sector Management?” Public Organization Review. Vol. 14 Issue 4, (Dec 2014) p517-531. Web. 10 March 2015.
Smith, D. (2014). Under New Public Management: Institutional Ethnographies of Changing Front-line Work. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Vermeulen, Philippe. “Ethics & Accountability in a Context of Governance & New Public Management.” Vol. 7, (1998) p171-188. 18p. 2 Diagrams, 1 Chart. Web. 10 March 2015.
Williams, Helen M., Julie Rayner, and Christopher W. Allinson. ″New Public Management and Organisational Commitment in the Public Sector: Testing a Mediation Model.″ International Journal of Human Resource Management 23.13 (2012): 2615-2629. EBSCOhost. Web. 9 March 2015.
References[edit]
Jump up ^ Hood 1991 and Hood and Jackson 1991
Jump up ^ http://www.managementstudyguide.com/new-public-management.htm
Jump up ^ http://www.managementstudyguide.com/new-public-management.htm
Jump up ^ http://www.managementstudyguide.com/new-public-management.htm
Jump up ^ http://www.managementstudyguide.com/new-public-management.htm
Jump up ^ Farazmand, Ali (Feb 2, 2006). "New Public Management". Handbook of Globalization, Governance, and Public Administration: 888. |access-date= requires |url= (help)
Jump up ^ Barzelay (2001). The New Public Management: Improving Research and Policy Dialogue. Russell Sage Foundation.
Jump up ^ Kaboolian, Linda (1998). The New Public Management: Challenging the Boundaries of the Management vs. Administration Debate. Public Administration Review.
Jump up ^ Marozzi, Marco; Bolzan, Mario (2015). "Skills and training requirements of municipal directors: A statistical assessment". Quality and Quantity. doi:10.1007/s11135-015-0192-2.
Jump up ^ Farazmand, Ali (Jan 2, 2006). "New Public Management: Theory, Ideology, and Practice". Handbook of Globalization, Governance and Public Administration. |access-date= requires |url= (help)
Jump up ^ in "A Public Management for all seasons?", Public Administration Review, Voæl 69, Spring1991 (3-19).
Jump up ^ Yamaoto, 1995
Jump up ^ Hood, 1991: 4-5
Jump up ^ Deffy, 1999:67-78
Jump up ^ Kaboolian, Linda (1998). The New Public Management: Challenging the Boundaries of the Management vs. Administration Debate. Public Administration Review.
Jump up ^ Barzelay (2001). The New Public Management: Improving Research and Policy Dialogue. Russell Sage Foundation.
Jump up ^ Dunleavy (2005). New Public Management Is Dead--Long Live Digital-Era Governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory.
Jump up ^ Dunleavy (2005). New Public Management Is Dead--Long Live Digital-Era Governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory.
Jump up ^ Pfiffner, James. "Public Administration versus The New Public Management" (PDF). Retrieved 18 November 2015.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_public_management&oldid=808331729"
Categories:
Public economics
Politics
Public administration
Business
Hidden categories:
Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL
All articles with unsourced statements
Articles with unsourced statements from November 2016
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
العربية
Dansk
Deutsch
Français
Italiano
Lietuvių
Nederlands
日本語
Norsk
Norsk nynorsk
Suomi
Svenska
Edit links
This page was last edited on 2 November 2017, at 06:40.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

value: sup

values:
/wiki/Board_of_Directors
mw-redirect
Board of Directors

values:
/wiki/United_States_of_America
mw-redirect
United States of America

values:
/wiki/Performance_evaluation
mw-redirect
Performance evaluation

values: This claim needs references to reliable sources. (November 2016)

values:
noprint Inline-Template Template-Fact
white-space:nowrap;

values: National Partnership for Reinventing Government

values: Edit section: Differences between public and private sectors

values: Edit section: Comparisons to New Public Administration

values: Category:Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL

values: Category:All articles with unsourced statements

values: Category:Articles with unsourced statements from November 2016

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values:
/wiki/New_public_management
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Find background information on current events

values:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

values: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

values: أنموذج الإدارة العامة الجديدة – Arabic

values: ニュー・パブリック・マネジメント – Japanese

values: New public management – Norwegian Nynorsk

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-New_public_management rootpage-New_public_management vector-experimental-print-styles vector-nav-directionality skin-vector action-view


text:
Financial cost of the Iraq War
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (August 2012) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
The following is a partial accounting of financial costs of the 2003 Iraq War by the United States and the United Kingdom, the two largest non-Iraqi participants of the multinational force in Iraq.
Contents
[hide]
1 U.S. war costs
1.1 Direct costs
1.1.1 Appropriations
1.2 Indirect and delayed costs
1.3 Military equipment lost
1.3.1 2006 Land equipment approximation
1.3.2 2006 Air equipment
1.3.3 2007 Land equipment approximation
2 U.K. war costs
3 See also
4 References
U.S. war costs[edit]
Direct costs[edit]
A Marine Corps M1 Abrams tank patrols a Baghdad street after its fall in 2003 during Operation Iraqi Freedom.
The costs of the 2003-2010 Iraq War are often contested, as academics and critics have unearthed many hidden costs not represented in official estimates. The most recent major report on these costs come from Brown University in the form of the Costs of War, which totaled just over $1.1 trillion. The Department of Defense's direct spending on Iraq totaled at least $757.8 billion, but also highlighting the complementary costs at home, such as interest paid on the funds borrowed to finance the wars.
Those figures are dramatically higher than typical estimates published just prior to the start of the Iraq War, many of which were based on a shorter term of involvement. For example, in a March 16, 2003 Meet the Press interview of Vice President Dick Cheney, held less than a week before the Iraq War began, host Tim Russert reported that "every analysis said this war itself would cost about $80 billion, recovery of Baghdad, perhaps of Iraq, about $10 billion per year. We should expect as American citizens that this would cost at least $100 billion for a two-year involvement."[1]
Appropriations[edit]
See also: Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund
FY2003 Supplemental: Operation Iraqi Freedom: Passed April 2003; Total $78.5 billion, $54.4 billion Iraq War
FY2004 Supplemental: Iraq and Afghanistan Ongoing Operations/Reconstruction: Passed November 2003; Total $87.5 billion, $70.6 billion Iraq War
FY2004 DoD Budget Amendment: $25 billion Emergency Reserve Fund (Iraq Freedom Fund): Passed July 2004, Total $25 billion, $21.5 billion (estimated) Iraq War
FY2005 Emergency Supplemental: Operations in the War on Terror; Activities in Afghanistan; Tsunami Relief: Passed April 2005, Total $82 billion, $58 billion (estimated) Iraq War
FY2006 Department of Defense appropriations: Total $50 billion, $40 billion (estimated) Iraq War.
FY2006 Emergency Supplemental: Operations Global War on Terror; Activities in Iraq & Afghanistan: Passed February 2006, Total $72.4 billion, $60 billion (estimated) Iraq War
FY2007 Department of Defense appropriations: $70 billion(estimated) for Iraq War-related costs[2][3]
FY2007 Emergency Supplemental (proposed) $100 billion
FY2008 Bush administration has proposed around $190 billion for the Iraq War and Afghanistan[4]
FY2009 Obama administration has proposed around $130 billion in additional funding for the Iraq War and Afghanistan.[5]
FY2010 Obama administration proposes around $159.3 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.[6]
Indirect and delayed costs[edit]
According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money. The CBO estimated that of the $2.4 trillion long-term price tag for the war, about $1.9 trillion of that would be spent on Iraq, or $6,300 per U.S. citizen.[7][8] The most recent CBO report, which was conducted after the end of combat operations and hence did not have to estimate future costs, was released in December 2014. It placed the cost of the war operations in Iraq as of January 1, 2014, at $815 billion out of the total $1.6 trillion approved by Congress since September 2001.[9]
Joseph Stiglitz, former chief economist of the World Bank and winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, and Linda Bilmes of Harvard University, have stated the total costs of the Iraq War on the US economy will be three trillion dollars in a moderate scenario, described in their book The Three Trillion Dollar War and possibly more in the most recent published study, published in March 2008.[10] Stiglitz has stated: "The figure we arrive at is more than $3 trillion. Our calculations are based on conservative assumptions...Needless to say, this number represents the cost only to the United States. It does not reflect the enormous cost to the rest of the world, or to Iraq."[10]
A 2013 updated study[11] pointed out that U.S. medical and disability claims for veterans after a decade of war had risen to $134.7 billion from $33 billion two years earlier.
The extended combat and equipment loss have placed a severe financial strain on the U.S. Army, causing the elimination of non-essential expenses such as travel and civilian hiring.[12][13]
The UH-60 Black Hawk that crashed on September 21, 2004.
Military equipment lost[edit]
The U.S. has lost a number of pieces of military equipment during the war. The following statistics are from the Center for American Progress;[14] and they are only approximations that also include vehicles lost in non-combat-related accidents as of 2006.
2006 Land equipment approximation[edit]
20 M1 Abrams tanks
50 M2 Bradley fighting vehicles
20 Stryker wheeled combat vehicles
20 M113 armored personnel carriers
250 Humvees
500+ Mine clearing vehicles, heavy/medium trucks, and trailers
10 Assault Amphibious Vehicles[15][16]
2006 Air equipment[edit]
Main article: List of aviation accidents and incidents during the Iraq War
109 Helicopters
18 Fixed-Wing Aircraft
In June 2006, the Army said that the cost of replacing its depleted equipment tripled from that of 2005.[17] As of December 2006, according to government data reported by the Washington Post, the military stated that nearly 40% of the army’s total equipment has been to Iraq, with an estimated yearly refurbishment cost of $US 17 billion. The military states that the yearly refurbishment cost has increased by a factor of ten compared to that of the pre-war state. As of December 2006 approximately 500 M1 tanks, 700 Bradley Fighting Vehicles and 1000 Humvees are awaiting repair in US military depots.[18]
In September 2007, the Congressional Budget Office produced a report outlining the Army's Reset Program[19] and included some combat loss numbers.
2007 Land equipment approximation[edit]
20 M1 Abrams tanks
50-75 M2 Bradley fighting vehicles
20-40 Stryker wheeled combat vehicles
20 M113 armored personnel carriers
461-800 Humvees (min, max based on 24k HMMWV and 15k trucks in theater, and 750-1300 losses)
288-500 Trucks (min, max based on 24k HMMWV and 15k trucks in theater, and 750-1300 losses)
U.K. war costs[edit]
As of March 2006, approximately £4.5 billion ($6.8 billion) had been spent by the United Kingdom in Iraq. All of this money has come from a government fund called the "Special Reserve" which at the time had an allocation of £7.4 billion ($9.99 billion).[20][21] According to the Ministry of Defence, the total cost of UK military operations in Iraq from 2003 to 2009 was £8.4bn. [22]
Official calculations stated that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined cost £20.3 billion (up to but not beyond June 2010).[23]
See also[edit]
Australian contribution to the 2003 invasion of Iraq
Polish involvement in the 2003 invasion of Iraq
Casualties of the Iraq War
Refugees of Iraq
References[edit]
Jump up ^ Transcript of a March 16, 2003 interview with Vice-President Dick Cheney by NBC's Meet the Press, from the website for the International Relations Program at Mount Holyoke College
Jump up ^ National Priorities Project | Bringing the Federal Budget Home from the Cost of War website
Jump up ^ "Congressional Reports: Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan since 9/11". zFacts.org. 2006-04-24. Archived from the original on 2006-08-21. Retrieved 2006-08-15.
Jump up ^ Increase In War Funding Sought from The Washington Post
Jump up ^ Gray, Andrew (2009-04-10). "UPDATE 2-Obama seeks $83.4 billion more in 2009 war funds". Reuters.
Jump up ^ Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates (February 1, 2010). "Defense Budget/QDR Announcement". Arlington, VA: U.S. Department of Defense.
Jump up ^ Richard Sammon (July 2007). "Iraq War: The Cost in Dollars". Retrieved 2007-07-23.
Jump up ^ "U.S. CBO estimates $2.4 trillion long-term war costs". Reuters. October 2007. Retrieved 2007-10-24.
Jump up ^ Amy Belasco (December 2014). "The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11" (PDF).
^ Jump up to: a b The three trillion dollar war from The Times of London
Jump up ^ Iraq war costs U.S. more than $2 trillion: study, Daniel Trotta, Reuters, 14 March 2013, accessed 18 March 2013
Jump up ^ "Strapped for money, Army extends cutbacks on spending". USA Today. 2006-07-20. Retrieved 2006-08-15.
Jump up ^ Michael Hirsh (2006-07-21). "End of Days?". Newsweek. Archived from the original on 2006-08-10. Retrieved 2006-08-15.
Jump up ^ Loren B. Thompson; Lawrence J. Korb; Caroline P. Wadhams. "Army Equipment After Iraq" (PDF). Center for American Progress. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2009-03-27. Retrieved 2009-08-15.
Jump up ^ Maj Karl C. Rohr (2006-03-21). "The Fog of War". Marine Corps Gazette. Retrieved 2006-08-15.
Jump up ^ Roxana Tiron (January 2006). "Marine Vehicle Upgrades Reflect Combat Demands". National Defense Magazine. Archived from the original on 2006-10-08. Retrieved 2006-08-15.
Jump up ^ "Army's Iraq, Afghanistan equipment costs triple". MSNBC. 2006-06-27. Retrieved 2006-08-15.
Jump up ^ "U.S. Army Battling To Save Equipment". Tyson, Ann Scott. Washington Post December 5, 2006.
Jump up ^ CBO (2007-09-01). "Replacing and Repairing Equipment Used in Iraq and Afghanistan: The Army's Reset Program" (PDF). CBO. Retrieved 2016-02-10.
Jump up ^ "The Rising Costs of the Iraq War (March 2006)". IraqAnalysis.org. 2006-03-22. Retrieved 2006-08-15.
Jump up ^ "U.K. Spending on War in Iraq, Afghanistan Rises to $16 Bln (December 2006)". Bloomberg. 2006-12-06. Archived from the original on 2007-06-07. Retrieved 2007-01-22.
Jump up ^ (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c3e50026-8e99-11de-87d0-00144feabdc0.html#axzz38WKKDSu8)
Jump up ^ "Afghanistan and Iraq 'have cost taxpayers £20bn' (October 2011)". The Daily Telegraph. London. 2010-06-20.
[hide]
v
t
e
Iraq War (2003–2011)
Background
Lead-up
Disarmament crisis
Yellowcake uranium
WMD claims
Rationale
US popular opinion
Hussein interview
Biological weapons
Invasion
Failed Iraqi peace initiatives
Preparations
Multi-National Force
Timeline
Battle of Nasiriyah
Invasion of Baghdad
Debecka Pass
Firdos Square statue
Mission Accomplished speech
Post-war WMD conjecture
Coalition Provisional Authority
Key events
Invasion (2003)
Execution of Saddam Hussein (2006)
Anbar Province (2003–11)
Insurgency (2003–11)
Post-invasion insurgency (2003–06)
Sectarian violence (2006–08)
U.S. withdrawal (2007–11)
Aftermath
Post-withdrawal insurgency (2011–13)
Military intervention against ISIL (2014–present)
Iraqi Civil War (2014–present)
Reactions
Views on the invasion
Legitimacy of the invasion
Opposition
Protests
Criticism
United Nations
Governmental positions
Controversies
Journalist deaths by U.S. fire (2003)
Baghdad Museum looting (2003)
Fallujah killings (2003)
Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (2004)
Mukaradeeb wedding party massacre (2004)
Haditha massacre (2005)
Mahmudiyah rape and killings (2006)
Ishaqi incident (2006)
Baghdad airstrike (2007)
Nisour Square massacre (2007)
Iraq War documents leak (2010)
Impact
Refugees
Duelfer Report
Damage to Baghdad
Iraq Interim Governing Council
Aid and Investment
Economic reform
Financial cost
Casualties
Chilcot Inquiry
Human rights
Memorials
London
Lists
Coalition military operations
Bombings
Aviation shootdowns and accidents
Associated people
Timeline
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Category
Wikinews
Multimedia
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War&oldid=821796332"
Categories:
Iraq War
Occupation of Iraq
Government finances in the United States
Military economics
Hidden categories:
NPOV disputes from August 2012
All NPOV disputes
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
العربية
Edit links
This page was last edited on 22 January 2018, at 17:58.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

attrs: alt src width height srcset data-file-width data-file-height

value: td

value: span

value: i

value: small

value: tr

values: plainlinks metadata ambox ambox-content ambox-POV

values:
/wiki/Multinational_force_in_Iraq
mw-redirect
Multinational force in Iraq

values: Edit section: Indirect and delayed costs

values:
/wiki/Nobel_Prize_in_Economics
mw-redirect
Nobel Prize in Economics

values:
/wiki/UH-60_Black_Hawk
mw-redirect
UH-60 Black Hawk

values: Edit section: 2006 Land equipment approximation

values:
/wiki/Washington_Post
mw-redirect
Washington Post

values: Edit section: 2007 Land equipment approximation

values:
nofollow
external text
http://costofwar.com/numbers.html

values:
/wiki/Cost_of_War
mw-redirect
Cost of War

values:
nofollow
external text
http://zfacts.com/p/272.html

values:
nofollow
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13563055/
external text

values: -moz-column-width: 30em; -webkit-column-width: 30em; column-width: 30em; list-style-type: decimal;

values: Popular opinion in the United States on the invasion of Iraq

values: WMD conjecture in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion of Iraq

values: United Nations Security Council and the Iraq War

values: Governmental positions on the Iraq War prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq

values: April 8, 2003 journalist deaths by U.S. fire

values:
/wiki/History_of_Iraq_(2003%E2%80%9311)
mw-redirect
History of Iraq (2003–11)

values: List of coalition military operations of the Iraq War

values: List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Iraq War

values: List of people associated with the 2003 invasion of Iraq

attrs: alt src title width height srcset data-file-width data-file-height

values:
https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Iraq_War
extiw
n:Iraq War

values: nowraplinks hlist collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner

values: Category:Government finances in the United States

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values:
/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

values: About the project, what you can do, where to find things

values: A list of recent changes in the wiki [ctrl-alt-r]

values: portal navigation p-interaction p-interaction-label

values: List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page [ctrl-alt-j]

values: Recent changes in pages linked from this page [ctrl-alt-k]

values:
/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard
Upload files [ctrl-alt-u]
u

values: A list of all special pages [ctrl-alt-q]

values: Permanent link to this revision of the page

values: Link to connected data repository item [ctrl-alt-g]

values: Printable version of this page [ctrl-alt-p]

values: تكلفة مالية لحرب العراق – Arabic

values: /static/images/wikimedia-button-1.5x.png 1.5x, /static/images/wikimedia-button-2x.png 2x

values: /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_132x47.png 1.5x, /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_176x62.png 2x

values:
suggestions
display: none; font-size: 13px;

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War rootpage-Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War skin-vector action-view