6 staat,” where a prince armed with absolute power ruled with the common good {salus publico) as his principle objective. As was true of those pursued by the mercantilists, the activities of the cameralists were directed above all toward developing methods to increase state revenues. Through an intensive policy of taxation and regulation, all potential economic resources in the state were to be mobilized in order to meet the growing public expenditures.^^ According to the cameralists, a unified and regularly functioning fiscal administration was of primary importance to effective fiscal policy.^® Thus they developed a doctrine of administrative techniques, whose importance for the development of state administration in the various European countries can hardly be exaggerated. Central administrative organs, which in terms of organizational structure and methods of work reflected the administrative program of the Austrian and German cameralists, began to emerge during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, especially in the German states and Scandinavia.^^ In contrast to its highly amorphous and losely structured medieval predecessor, this new type of administration was characterized by a systematically designed organizational structure consisting of clearly defined administrative units with permanent jurisdictional frameworks and permanent staffs. The private court economy of the prince was now detached completely from the public administration, which was thereby “objectivized” in the sense that it appeared to work for a separate, objective state purpose. Concerning the doctrine of taxation advocated by the cameralists, see Axel Nielsen, Den tyske Kameralvidenskabs Opstaaen i det 17. Aarhundrede (Copenhagen, 1911), 22— 46, 71—80. Hans Maier, Die ältere deutsche Staats- und Verwaltungslchrc (Polizeiwissenschaft) (Darmstadt, 1966), 188—189. According to an opinion often expressed in the literature on administrative history, for example, Emperor Maximilian I’s reforms were based on the FrancoBurgundian administrative tradition; see Fritz Hartung, Staatsbildendc Kräfte der Neuzeit (Berlin, 1961), 81—82. Concerning the importance of Maximilian’s reforms for administrative developments in the German states, see Theodor Mayer, Die Verwaltungsorganisation Maximilians I. Ihr Ursprung und ihre Bedeutung (Innsbruck, 1920). The Swedish state administration was, without any doubt, originally based on continental models, but we know nothing about the process through which those models were imitated; see Nils Eden, Den svenska centralregeringens utveckling till kollegial organisation i början av sjuttonde århundradet (1602—1634) (Uppsala, 1902), 114. As for Denmark, a not inconsiderable dependence on German administrative traditions has been demonstrated by various historians, but the systematic administrative reform of the central Danish administration carried out during the 1660s was influenced strongly by the Swedish administrative structure; See Carl Christiansen, Bidrag til dansk Statshusholdnings Historic under de to forste Enevoldskonger (2 v., Copenhagen, 1908—1922), I, 39—42.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=