The book Josephinische Mandarine: Bürokratie und Beamte in Österreich is the second and last part of Waltraud Heindl's monograph about Austrian bureaucracy and civil servants. The first part dealt with the period 1780–1848. In the second, Heindl navigates through very diverse regimes, taking into account the aftermath of a revolution, neoabsolutism, the first promulgation of a “real” Austrian constitution, the compromise with Hungary in 1867, and the outbreak of World War I. In this period, “Austria” shrank. After the compromise with Hungary, Austria became only one part of a couple, and from this point on the author deals almost exclusively with the Austrian, so-called Cisleithanian, part.

Initially, Heindl explains to what extent the revolutionary year of 1848 was a turning point (particularly when taking into account the topic of the first book). She then draws attention to the two constitutional “experiments” before 1867 and their influence on public service. Chapter 5 deals with these officials as social group, their daily duties, social life, and their position within the Habsburg society. It also sheds light on how former revolutionary (German) liberal civil servants navigated through a neoabsolutistic and then constitutional era. Most of them remained in office and shaped the monarchy's administration for a long time. Chapter 6 deals not only with the public image of civil servants but also how they created their own image. Chapter 7 is called “Josephinism and Modernity around 1900.” Here, I would have expected to read more about how the Habsburg national issue was reflected among the civil servants. Despite a summary, the author considers the long-term consequences—the heritage so to speak. She points out that many pre-1914 convictions influenced not only today's Austria, but also all states that inherited former Habsburg soil.

Heindl deals with questions that are important not only for Habsburg historians, such as the role of civil servants in a multiethnic state and to what extend “modernism” influenced public service. What strikes this reader is the relevance of some of Heindl's discussion to contemporary public discussions about civil service and servants. Throughout Francis Joseph's reign, there was a demand for an overall administrative reform. Although administering a much bigger state than today's Austria, the monarchy had at its disposal only a small cadre of civil servants. Yet, the increasing size of the bureaucracy was a frequent topic in public debates. There were regular demands for increased salary and new regulations for a faster advancement. Heindl shows that many civil servants were elected to the parliament and enacted policies that benefited their own group. Newly emerged parties such as Social Democrats and Christian Socialists focused especially on civil servants of lower class, who outnumbered their wealthy colleagues. Before the abandonment of census suffrage, all parties tried to avoid being seen as “beamtenfeindlich” (141), as acting against the claims of civil servants. There was also a constant public claim to abandon protectionism and to employ people based on their skills. Nevertheless, family members often helped each other, and there was also a support for individuals who matched the civil servants' region of origin or attended the same elite school (Kaderschmiede).

Another important point Heindl makes is about women's employment. She shows that throughout the nineteenth century, there was a rising number of women working in state institutions. The reason behind this was not the lack of workforce, as during the Great War, but, for example, to enable unmarried women to earn income.

The author also engages with the most important issue of the late Habsburg monarchy: the national question (Nationalitätenfrage). Heindl asks to what extent it influenced public service and its members. She rightly presumes that no overall assumption can be made as to whether civil servants tended to be more loyal to the empire, the state and the emperor, or to their ethnic/national group and political ideology. She argues rightly that the response to this issue differed from person to person. In other words, she describes civil servants as a heterogeneous group, one that was divided not only along ethnic and political lines, but also along social lines. Public employees ranged from poorly paid unskilled employees to the academically educated. Some came from a peasant background; others belonged to aristocratic families.

In the introduction, Heindl writes that her approach is to bring justice to an institution that is usually perceived negatively by the public (“einer im Volksmund nicht wohl beleumundeten und vonseiten der Politik eher unbedankten Institution Gerechtigkeit wiederfahren zu lassen”; 14), which at the beginning raised some concerns for this reviewer. Where could such an effort end? Highlighting only positive aspects of these institutions and its members by neglecting others? On the contrary: Heindl makes a strong statement on the need for critical analysis, especially of autobiographical sources, and for taking into account all perspectives, and so describing why some journalists criticized civil servants or why some criticized their colleagues.

The book is the outcome of archival research that incorporates administrative documents, newspapers, and autobiographical sources. Although the main language of administration was German, which was also the language of daily use for many civil servants, it would have been interesting to read more about how the system was assessed by those who did not write their memoirs or diaries in this language, or how Czech-language newspapers wrote about public service. Heindl takes this into account by using recent historiography dealing with officials who used other languages (such as Eva Somogyi's work on the Hungarian civil servants). The book is easy to read and informative, particularly when it comes to questions as to who and which organization was responsible for what. It is especially suitable for academic teaching.