CAMERALISM: ADMINISTRATIVE PATTERNS DURING THE TRANSITION FROM PATRIMONIAL TO BUREAUCRATIC ADMINISTRATION

Cameralism, which has crucial impact upon the continental European administrative tradition, has not been widely studied in context of a detailed administrative ground. Patrimonial administration is characterized by features such as personality, arbitrariness, lack of clarity of the boundaries between private life and administration and administration was not regarded as a profession based on expertise. While, bureaucratic administration is based upon the principles of non-personality, expertise, rationality, predefined impersonal rules. If patrimonial and bureaucratic adminstration are considered as two poles, cameralism is an approach that has elements from both approaches. Upon this peculiarity, it provides a framework to understand the development of the bureaucratic administration. In this article various principles of administration have been evaluated upon patrimonial and bureaucratic ground and then it is aimed at defining the position of cameralism by comparing to the two approaches. In some respects cameralism functioned as the remnants of patrimonal administration while in other respects it had substantially similar peculiarities to the bureaucratic administration. In this context; the patriomanonial absolutism which allowed the king to govern personelly with an unbounded authority continued to exist until 1800’s. However, the acceptance of administration as profession which is carried out by civil servants and training of those experts started to be practised rather earlier. This article advocates that the study of Kameralizm through essential principles of administration will provide a meaningful framework to understand the development and formation of bureaucratic administration. ？t could also provide a framework for the healthier understanding of the administrative peculiarities in central and eastern European countries, Russia and Turkey