Co-ordination, to James D. Mooney and Alan C. Reiley, _Onward Industry_ (New York: Harper, 1931), “expresses the principles of organization in toto.” All other principles are merely those through which co-ordination acts. And co-ordination means to “act together” (p. 19). White, having criticized Mooney and Reiley for taking the concept of co-ordination to express “the whole of administration,” suggests that “to co-ordinate is to bring about the consistent and harmonious action of persons with each other toward a common end” (p. 210). This, some would regard as a shorthand definition of administration. Charlesworth, _op. cit._, and Simon, _Administrative Behavior_, attempt to distinguish between co-operation and co-ordination. Charlesworth’s effort is perhaps the most elaborate, and Simon’s seems, in the context of this study, to have the most operational utility. Charlesworth distinguishes between “vertical and horizontal” co-ordination, and stresses that “co-ordination is promoted both structurally and procedurally” (pp. 245-46). Apparently attributing to the term “integration” the same meaning previously assigned to “co-operation” (“Administrative integration means administrative wholeness, or oneness, or entireness, or completeness of the elements of control.”), he distinguishes between integration and co-ordination: “Integration is different from co-ordination in that co-ordination relates to causing disjunct elements to work harmoniously together whereas integration relates to the completeness and wholeness of the controls by which the harmony is brought about....” (pp. 252-53). Simon suggests that “Perhaps it would clarify discussion of administrative theory to use the term ‘co-ordination’ for activity in which the participants share a common goal, and ‘co-ordination’ for the process of informing each as to the planned behaviors of the others. Hence, co-operation will usually be ineffective--will not reach its goal, whatever the intentions of the participants--in the absence of co-ordination” (p. 72). These quotations have been placed in juxtaposition to illustrate existing inconsistencies and ambiguities in the use of the terms co-operation and co-ordination in most standard works on public administration in the United States. It would be distortive of the purpose of this study to undertake to refine and relate these concepts. We do suggest, however, that administrative theorists undertaking this task could profitably seek insight in statutory materials and administrative histories--i.e., empirical data. [694] 53 Stat. 811, June 7, 1939, Sec. 2, 3. [695] 53 Stat. 1407, August 11, 1939. [696] 63 Stat. 208, June 20, 1949, Sec. 8. [697] 66 Stat. 163, January 27, 1952, Sec. 201 (b); 202. [698] Proclamation No. 2980, 66 Stat. 136, June 30, 1952. [699] 61 Stat. 495, July 26, 1947, Sec. 2. [700] 56 Stat. 351, June 11, 1942. [701] 58 Stat. 190, April 5, 1944. [702] 59 Stat. 231, June 5, 1945.