Criticism for Max Webers Bureaucracy

Written by Dr. Wasim Al-Habil

College of Commerce
The Islamic ni!ersity of "a#a
Beginning $ith Max Weber% bureaucracies ha!e been regar&e& as mechanisms that
rationali#e authority an& &ecision-ma'ing in society. (et subse)uent theorists ha!e
)uestione& the rationality of bureaucracies. Which features of mo&ern-&ay *ublic
bureaucracies are rational+ Which are not+ Buttress your argument $ith citations
from organi#ation an&,or *ublic a&ministration theories.

Intro&uction-
Max Webers work about bureaucracy, translated into English in 1946, was one of
the maor contributions that has influenced the literature of !ublic administration"
#owe$er, %an &i!er '199() argues that the work of Weber on bureaucracy has no
influence on *merican +* until the 19,-s" .he word bureaucracy is deri$ed from two
words/ 0bureau1 and 02ratos"1 While the word 0bureau1 refers to the office the 3reek
suffix 0kratia or kratos means !ower or rule" .hus we use the word 0bureaucracy1 to
refer to the !ower of the office '#ummel, 1994, 5-()" 06ureaucracy1 is rule conducted
from a desk or office, i"e" by the !re!aration and dis!atch of written documents and
electronic ones" 6ureaucracy is borrowed by the field of !ublic administration '+*) from
the field of sociology" 7t was borrowed by +* in much a similar way that !ractices of
business were borrowed from the field of business administration and economics" Weber
'1946) !resents bureaucracy as both a scientific and generic model that can work in both
the !ublic and !ri$ate sectors '&ainey, 1996)" 8or exam!le, Weber asserts that9
.he bureaucratic structure goes hand with the concentration of the
material means of management in the hands of master" .his concentration
occurs, for instance in a well:known and ty!ical fashion, in de$elo!ment
1
of big ca!italist enter!rise, which finds their essential characteristics in
this !rocess" * corres!onding !rocess occurs in !ublic organi;ation '1946,
<<1)"
.his belief in science was e$ident in Max Webers rational:legal authority, which
became the defining feature of organi;ational structures, es!ecially go$ernment
bureaucracies, to this day" 7t steered organi;ational setu!s to rational based
considerations, which are in line with the science of administration idea" 7n other words,
Webers bureaucracy consists of the traditional way of thinking in !ublic administration
that relied on the same 0ingredients1 to reform !ublic administration based on the science
of administration '.hom!son, <--,)"
.his essay ex!lores the nature of Webers bureaucracy and its influence on the +*
discourse" 7t ex!lains the reaction to Webers conce!t of bureaucracy and its combustion
with ca!italist and democratic $alues" 7n addition, the essay reflects the rational and
irrational areas that can be traced in the literature of !ublic organi;ations and !ublic
administration theories" 7t concludes by !resenting an obecti$e $iew of bureaucracy and
its im!lementing im!lications in a democratic society like the =nited >tates"
.ationality of Webers Bureaucracy-
Weber defines bureaucracy as 0the means of carrying community action o$er into
rationally ordered social action? an instrument for sociali;ing relations of !ower,
bureaucracy has been and is a !ower instrument of the first order"1 >ome scholars
'8riedrich, 194-/ 8iner, 1941/ >imon, 194(/ >hafrit; and #yde,199(/ and Marshall in
%entriss, <---) argue that !ublic administration is a field of control/ control of !ublic
administrators, control of !eo!le, control of in!uts, and control of out!uts" *ll these kinds
of controls seek to achie$e one main goal which is to meet the !eo!les needs and
<
ex!ectations in an efficient way" *ccording to Weber '1946), bureaucracy 0is, from a
!urely technical !oint of $iew, ca!able of attaining the highest degree of efficiency and is
in this sense formally that most rational known means of carrying out im!erati$e control
o$er human beings1 '55()"
Weber argues that human ci$ili;ation e$ol$ed from !rimiti$e and mystical to the
rational and com!lex stages and relationshi!s" Weber belie$es that societies mo$e from
the !rimiti$e stage to theoretical and technical ones" *ccording to Weber, the e$olution of
societies is facilitated by three ty!es of authority that he identifies as traditional,
charismatic and legal:rational authority '8ry, 1949)" 7t is the legal:rational ty!e of
authority that constitutes the basis of Webers conce!t of bureaucracy and the foundation
of modern ci$ili;ation as it is !remised on 0a belief in the legitimacy of the !attern of
normati$e rules and the rights of those ele$ated to authority under such rules to issue
commands1 '>tillman, <---, ,1)"
>ince Weber argues that bureaucracy grows because of societys needs of
!ro$ision of education, health, social ser$ices, collecting taxes, and others, and therefore
work has to be di$ided and s!eciali;ed to achie$e the things desired by the society" 7n this
$ein, >tillman '<---) @uotes Weber stating that 0AtBhe !ro!er soil for bureaucrati;ation of
administration has always been the de$elo!ment of administrati$e tasks1 '>tillman, <---,
,<)" 2ey features of the ideal ty!e of bureaucracy that Weber !resents are di$ision of
labor, hierarchal order, written documents, well:trained staff and ex!erts, full working
ca!acity of the officials, and a!!lication of im!ersonal rules '#ummel, 1994, 5-()"
#owe$er, these ingredients of bureaucracy may not, always, hel! organi;ations to reach
its ideal work or the most efficient !erformance" Michel Cro;ier '1964) argues that some
5
of the bureaucratic characteristics including the im!ersonal rules, hierarchy, and
centrali;ation of decision:making might lead to the inability of the organi;ation to correct
or change its beha$ior by learning from its !re$ious mistakes while ser$ing the society"
7n fact, work within bureaucracy has to be di$ided rationally into units that can be
undertaken by indi$iduals or grou!s of indi$iduals in a diligent manner" .he hierarchical
order is necessary for se!arating su!eriors from subordinates whereas im!ersonal rules
are meant to ensure that bureaucrats are confined to !rescribed !atterns of conduct or
!erformance im!osed by legal rules" .he rules are meant to facilitate a systematic control
of subordinates by their su!eriors, 0thus limiting the o!!ortunities for arbitrariness and
!ersonal fa$oritism1 '>tillman, <---, ,<)" .he o!erations of the bureaucracy 0exclude
irrational feelings and sentiments in fa$or of the detached, !rofessional ex!ert1 '8ry,
1994, 55)" .herefore, one may deduce from the foregoing that Weber belie$es that
organi;ational goals can be attained if there is a science of administration which se!arates
facts from $alues"
Moreo$er, Weber belie$es that bureaucracy is the most rational and efficient
organi;ational form de$ised by man" Webers bureaucracy 0is rational in that it in$ol$es
control based on knowledge, it has clearly defined s!heres of com!etence, it o!erates
according to intellectually analy;able rules, and it has calculability in its o!erations1 '8ry,
1994, 5<)" 7n the same $ein, Webers 0AbBureaucracy is efficient because of its !recision,
s!eed, consistency, a$ailability of records, continuity, !ossibility of secrecy, unity,
rigorous coordination, and minimi;ation of inter!ersonal friction, !ersonal costs, and
material costs1 '8ry, 1994, 5<)"
4
Domination is what Webers conce!t of bureaucracy is all about according to
6rian &" 8ry '1994) in Mastering Public Administration" 7t is a domination that 0is
exerted through administration1 and 0that legal domination re@uires bureaucracy for its
exercise1 '8ry, 1994, 1,)" 6ureaucracy, states 8ry, is Webers tool to ex!ress the most
efficient and rational form of organi;ation" 6y its essence, bureaucracy in$ol$es the
element of control based u!on the ac@uisition of s!ecific ty!es of knowledge" 7t is the
efficient manner in which bureaucracy controls such knowledge that is its hallmark"
Weber states about efficiency and bureaucracy that9
Ex!erience tends uni$ersally to sow that the !urely bureaucratic ty!e of
administrati$e organi;ation that is, the monocratic $ariety of bureaucracy
is, from a !urely technical !oint of $iew, ca!able of attaining the highest
degree efficiency and is in this sense formally the most rational known
means of carrying out im!erati$e control o$er human beings" 7t is su!erior
to any other form of !recision, in stability, in the stringency of its
disci!line, and its reliability? it is the sco!e of its o!erations, and is
formally ca!able of a!!lication to all kinds of administrati$e tasks 'Weber,
194(, 55()
&ational decision:making is the underlying root to the success of bureaucracy"
.he ideal:ty!e of bureaucracy, according to Weber, !ossesses rationally discussible
grounds for e$ery administrati$e act" 8urther, it dis!enses e@uality in conce!t and
a!!lication as well as establishing relationshi!s based u!on a sense of !ermanence"
*ccording to Weber, bureaucratic organi;ations o!erate 0sine ira ac studio, meaning
without a sense of bias of fa$or, relying solely on a !rofessional decision:maker1
'&heinstein, 19,4, 19-:<)" With such an em!hasis on !rofessionalism, there is a sense of
a guarantee that rational obecti$ity is the order of the day rather than the !ersonal
choices of an arbitrary authority according to Weber"
,
We can critically assess bureaucracies as organi;ations with similar elements to
the ones described by Michel 8oucault '19(,) in this book, Discipline and Punish: The
Birth of the Prison. *re not the em!loyees of !ublic organi;ations taught certain methods
and normsE Do not they follow s!ecific rules, !rocedures and ways of !erforming their
tasksE We see structures of societal institutions that remind us of the +ano!ticon/ workers
can see and can be seen" .hey are constantly su!er$ised, analy;ed, tested, and
re!rimanded for not following the norms" +eo!le sense that bureaucracy gets in$ol$ed in
e$ery domain in their life and im!oses its rational restrictions and sometimes the
irrational ones, which are discussed in the next !art of this essay"
Bureaucracy% Ca*italism% / Democracy-
Weber generally im!lies that bureaucracy exists e$erywhere in a ca!italistic
society" Webers conce!tuali;ations of ca!italism and bureaucracy are 0mutually
su!!orti$e structures1 '8ry, 1994, 55)" Ca!italism and bureaucracy re@uire the same
im!ersonal ty!e of communication, one based on transactions that re@uire legal and
ethical beha$ior in order to !erform successfully"
Fn the other hand, bureaucracy and democracy ha$e a different ty!e of
relationshi!" 7t is that relationshi! which hel!s form the core of the intellectual res!onse
by the field of !ublic administration to the integration of many Webers organi;ation
theory tenets" 7t is a relationshi! that is built u!on influential statements by Weber and
future analyses of his efforts on the subect by scholars in the realm of +*" 6ureaucracy is
the means for achie$ing rationally ordered social action" .he @uestion for !ublic
administrators is what ha!!ens if bureaucracy exceeds its bounds" 8irst, let me offer
Webers res!onse to that @uestion, which could be found in his thoughts on democracy"
6
>!ecifically, democracy of a s!ecial ty!e is one where leaders are chosen to lead" Fn
democracy, Weber writes9
7n a democracy !eo!le choose a leader in whom they trust" .hen the
chosen leader says, 0Gow shut u! and obey me"1 +eo!le and !arty are no
longer free to interfere in his business ? Hater the !eo!le can sit in
udgment" 7f the leader has made a mistake I to the gallows with himJ
'3erth K Mills, 1946, 6)
+olitical leadershi! in a democratic framework is necessary for su!remacy of the
!olitics o$er the bureaucracy" .his central issue is a !rime concern for Weber as well as
for the scholars of +*" 0+assi$e democrati;ation1 is a !rocess by which Weber describes
that the bureaucratic elements control its democratic !artici!ants by controlling task
com!letion" When there are too few control outcomes, there will be a danger of elite
status or control grou!s, which becomes difficult to dislodge" %ictor .hom!son '1961)
ex!lains that bureaucrats sometimes ado!t beha$ior !atterns to dominate control o$er
!eo!le by using their authority"
.he disconnection between !rofessionals and citi;ens has been !resented
succinctly by *lexander and &ichmond '<--5) when they talked about the rigidity of
rules and !rofessionalism by stating that9
7n the context of go$ernance by the elite in that it entails rule by the
ex!erts, the !hiloso!her kings" *s a result, go$ernance by ex!erts limits
democratic !rocess e$en further because !rofessionals are inclined to
determine right action through their !rofessional training and science I
which means they may be inclined to deny in!ut or the $alidity of in!ut
from citi;enryL!eo!le who may ha$e a !ersonal stake" .he ethical
dilemma that results is denial of the $alidity of !eo!les li$ed ex!erience
and how it can inform decisions that affect them '4)"
Fn the go$ernance le$el and under the umbrella of rigorous scientific, rational
$iew, why does bureaucracy conflict with democracyE *dministration 'bureaucracy) is
about s!ecifics rules, !rocedures, and getting things done while democracy is about
(
ex!ression of will, !artici!ation, !ersuasion, and considering the $oices of each citi;en"
6ut to come u! with the democratic administration is not an easy mission because
bureaucracy itself is the tool which is a!!lied in the administration to get the work done"
6ureaucracy itself is not democratic because it is based on hierarchy"
Irrationalities,0imitations of Bureaucracy-
&obert Merton '19,<) critici;es Webers bureaucracy by obser$ing that the
bureaucratic features, which Weber belie$es in enhancing rationality and efficiency,
might actually be associated with irrationality and inefficiency" Merton concludes that
bureaucracy contains the seeds of its own destruction" .his !art discusses the bureaucratic
model of Max Weber from a critical !oint of $iew" 7t focuses on four main irrational
limitations that bureaucracy has in terms of its ideal ty!e, its negligence of informal
organi;ation, and its dehumani;ation as well as its tense relationshi! with democracy" 7n
!articular, Webers bureaucracy does not consider the im!ortant role of the informal
relationshi!s that exist in any human organi;ations" 7n addition, many in !ublic
administration argue that the reality of bureaucratic discretion is a threat to democratic
norms and !ractices that go$ern and rule the *merican community"
&egarding the first limitation and through examining Webers bureaucracy
carefully, Weber !resents to us an idealistic and !latonic model of bureaucracy that can
go$ern and run the !ublic system in any !lace and at any time" Weber '1946) uses
ex!ressions like9 0fully de$elo!ed,1 0the !ure ty!e,1 0most highly de$elo!ed1 or 0!urely
obecti$e considerations1 which indicate that his model of bureaucracy is !erfect and
com!lete and it always functions effecti$ely and efficiently" #a$ing !roblems in the
!ublic !erformance and its inability to meet the whole citi;ens social needs and !olitical
4
rights in any country negates the claim that the bureaucratic model is an idealistic and
!latonic system" 6ureaucracy of Weber has not demonstrated that it is 0fully de$elo!ed1
structure under the regular conditions in reality" +eter 6lau and Marshall Meyer '194()
argue that 0since !erfect bureaucrati;ation is ne$er fully reali;ed, no existing
organi;ation !recisely fits the Mideal ty!e? AwhichB does not !ro$ide understanding of
concrete bureaucratic structure1 '<,)" 7n other words, it does not seem right for
organi;ations to follow an ideal guide which may ne$er be reached or may not work
efficiently when it is a!!lied"
E$en though if one argues that the ideal bureaucracy is only a conce!tual guide
for organi;ations to follow, it should be clear that this guide might be a misleading one
because organi;ation !ossesses 0!atterns of acti$ities and interactions that re$eal how
social conduct is organi;ed1 '6lau and Meyer, 194(, <6)" 6lau and Meyer '194() assert
that 0em!irical studies ha$e shown that this a!!roach is misleading1 '<()" #owe$er, this
essay em!hasi;es that the word 0ideal1 did not im!ly or mean 0the best1 or 0what we
should stri$e for"1 Weber meant it as 0defining characteristics1 I that is, when we use the
word this is what is meant" 7t is essentially a conce!tual model of bureaucracy rather than
something we thought that we should stri$e for"
.he second limitation that one can argue in regard to the bureaucratic model of
Weber is the unawareness of the role of informal organi;ation in affecting the efficiency
of organi;ations !erformance" Weber focuses mainly on the formal elements of
bureaucracy such as s!eciali;ation, rules, hierarchy, and others" Fn the other hand, the
informal elements including human relationshi!s, leadershi!, communication networks,
moti$ation, and others were not gi$en the attention that they deser$e in the functions of
9
the !ublic and !ri$ate organi;ations as well" .he existence and im!ortance of informal
organi;ation, which is defined as 0the aggregate of the !ersonal contacts and interactions
and the associated grou!ing of !eo!le1 '6arnard, 1966, 11,), is highly acce!ted in the
field of management" 6arnard '1966) affirms that 0informal organi;ations are necessary
to the o!eration of formal organi;ations as a mean of communication, of cohesion, and of
!rotecting the integrity of the indi$iduals1 '1<5)" .his im!ortance of informal
organi;ations is not seen in the bureaucratic model of Weber which focuses on formal
structures only" E$en though he talks about some social, !olitical, or beha$ioral
conditions of indi$iduals in organi;ation, his !ers!ecti$e emerges mainly from the
framework of the formal organi;ation"
.hirdly, &al!h +" #ummel '<--() in his classic book, The Bureaucratic
Experience ',
th
edition), argues that bureaucracy is getting worse in s!ite of all efforts
exerted by the theorists of @uality management, cor!orate reengineering, and the new
!ublic management because it is still 0business as usual1 for bureaucracies" #e ex!lains
that bureaucrat becomes only a mechanistic technician who is detached from herLhis
humanity, emotions, society, and e$en herLhis indi$idual thinking describing it as 0the
bomb that threatens humanity"1 #e adds that bureaucracy re!laces human identity,
character, and autonomous will by the organi;ation identity '6odley, <--<, (,)"
Moreo$er, bureaucracy forces human to substitute herLhis sense of right and wrong while
!erforming herLhis daily tasks by decisions, rules, and instructions im!osed by higher
su!er$isors who might be away from the real social context and its necessities" #ummel
states that bureaucracy deals with human beings as cases rather than human beings who
are in need for social and economic ser$ices stating that 0AwBhat is a caseE * case is ne$er
1-
a real !erson1 '<4)" 7f the case meets the rules and laws of bureaucracy the case can be
ser$ed" #owe$er, if the case does not meet the eligibility the case can be neglected e$en
if it is worthy to be ser$ed from a human discretional !oint of $iew" #ummel announces
that there is a conflict between society and bureaucracy and 0all attem!ts to humani;e
relationshi!s between a bureaucracy and society must therefore considered as suicidal or
window:dressing when they come from within bureaucracy itself, and as declaration of
war when they originate in society1 '41)" 7n other words, bureaucracy is blind, deaf, and
dumb"
The A**lication of Bureaucracy in a Democratic 1ociety-
8rom Waldos '1944) insight about the im!ossibility of really se!arating !olitics
and administration, scholars of +* can infer that there is tension in the literature between
bureaucracy and democracy" &egarding the fourth limitation, many *merican scholars
ha$e ex!ressed their concerns that the reality of bureaucratic discretion is a threat to
democratic norms and !ractices" 8or exam!le, we do not know how bureaucracy
functions in light of what both 6lau and Meyer argue that 0to !rotect oursel$es against
the threat of bureaucratic domination while continuing to take ad$antage of the
efficiencies of bureaucracy, we must first learn fully to understand how bureaucracies
function1 '6lau and Meyer @uoted in Hane, 1999, 4)"
6lau and Meyer ex!lain that Weber confessed that established bureaucracies are,
at best, ambi$alent toward democracy" 0Fn the one hand, bureaucrati;ation tends to
accom!any mass democracy" Fn the other hand, bureaucracies tend not to be res!onsi$e
to !ublic o!inion1 '6lau and Meyer @uoted in Hane, 1999, 1<)" +eo!le ask all the times
whether !ublic bureaucracies can be controlled com!letely or not, according to Hane
11
'1999)" Names Wilson '1949) clarifies that there are three ways in which !olitical !ower
may be gathered undesirably into bureaucratic hands9
by the growth of an administrati$e a!!aratus so large as to be immune
from !o!ular control, by !lacing !ower o$er a go$ernmental
bureaucracy of any si;e in !ri$ate rather than !ublic hands, or by $esting
discretionary authority in the hands of !ublic agency so that the exercise
of that !ower is not res!onsi$e to the !ublic good 'Hane, 1999, 4-)"
Meier and F.oole '<--6) find that bureaucrats are !owerful and can alter
!olitical !rograms to reflect their own $alues I they are strategic agents" Names O" Wilson
'1949) argues that *merican bureaucracy is laden with rules, 0that is a sure sign that the
bureaucracy is aloof from the !eo!le, distant from their concerns and !reoccu!ied with
the !ower and !ri$ileges of the bureaucrats I an elaborate, grinding machine that can
crush the s!irit of any who dare o!!ose it1 'Wilson, 1949, @uoted in >tillman, <---, 444)"
Due to the irreconcilable differences between administrati$e traditions and the
im!ossibility of managing a modern society without bureaucracy, it is not sur!rising that
scholars ha$e had difficulty ex!laining the relationshi! between bureaucracy and
re!resentati$e go$ernment" .he !roblems bureaucrats must deal with do not always fit
into the hierarchy and authority based structures"
*lthough Mc>wite '199() lament the reluctance of !eo!le within the field of
!ublic administration to resol$e the @uestion of how bureaucracy fits into democracy,
they are of the $iew that 0kee!ing the @uestion ali$e is essential to the identity that it
wishes to maintain for the re!ublic administrator I the !ower:wielding Man of &eason1
'<51)" 7n other words, the more time we s!end discussing the role of bureaucracy in the
organi;ational de$elo!ment, the more the !rofessionals or ex!erts 'bureaucrats) who
1<
dominate the decision:making !rocess will continue to consolidate their !osition within
the society"
*merican liberal thought is a maor source of frustration to those who seek a
theoretical base that integrates democratic and bureaucratic theory" .his tension generates
a conflict between democratic and bureaucratic !ers!ecti$es on go$ernance and !recludes
an effecti$e integration of the two" What seems clear is that the conflict between
bureaucracy and democracy is stee!ed in 0!rimordial contro$ersy1 '&ohr, 1946, ,9:(5)"
* discourse on the tensions between bureaucracy and democracy could !ro$ide guidance
to administrators through a better understanding of the conce!tual barriers to the
de$elo!ment of a theory of democratic administration"
.he tension between bureaucracy and democracy leads the discussion to the
issues of legitimacy of bureaucracy, !ower, discretion, and udgment in the field of !ublic
administration" >ti$ers '<--1) states that
.his tension Abetween democratic go$ernance and bureaucratic
effecti$enessB has made im!ortant to!ics of debate?6eneath these
@uestions is the e$en more fundamental issue?how to make the !ower
exercised by career bureaucrats consistent with the democratic
go$ernment" 7t is assumed that modern go$ernment needs the ex!ert and
efficient action that bureaucracy makes !ossible" 6ut a basic tenet of
democracy, enshrined in the =">" Constitution, is that !ublic !ower
ultimately comes from the !eo!le" #ow, then, does the bureaucracy make
itself answerable to the !eo!leE '>ti$ers, <--191,9)"
6ureaucracy is no longer considered a closed system since citi;ens can
!artici!ate in the decision:making !rocess through ad$isory boards, neighborhood
council and others forms" 7n this $ein, Wilson '1949) contends that the system has
become irrational and inefficient" #e bemoans this situation by stating that 0this
!o!ular in$ol$ement would be taken as e$idence that the administrati$e system is
15
no system at al, but a bungling, erry:built contra!tion wallowing in efficiency
and shot through with corru!tion and fa$oritism1 'Wilson @uoted in >tillman,
<---, 444)"
*s a result of adherence to rules and o!enness to the !ublic, Wilson
obser$ed that 0!ublic bureaucracy in this country is neither as rational nor
!redictable as Weber ho!ed nor as crushing and mechanistic as he feared" 7t is
rule:bound without being corru!t1 'Wilson @uoted in >tillman, <---, 444)" #e
goes further by arguing that the go$ernments of the =nited >tates were not
designed to be efficient or !owerful, but to be tolerable and malleable"
2b3ecti!e 4ie$ on Bureaucracy-
.rying to be obecti$e as much as !ossible, neither democracy nor society will
ha$e chance to sur$i$e without bureaucracy because the latter 'democracy) will not be
able to carry out the !rogrammatic !romises of its elected leaders '3oodsell, 1994, 1,<)"
Waldo held that since democracy has long been acce!ted as the most a!!ro!riate form of
go$ernment in *merica, it has ser$ed the 0higher law"1 .he central issue of our time
according to Waldo is that the !otential conflict of bureaucracy and democracy are
intimately oined" 6ureaucracy to Waldo meant large:scale, formal, com!lex, task
s!eciali;ed, and goal oriented organi;ations" Democracy is characteri;ed by $alues and
ethics and it is not totally incom!atible with bureaucracy" .he bureaucracy, on one hand,
su!!orts democratic $alues and, on the other hand, has some conflicting characteristics
such as hierarchy and disci!line and su!er$ision which conflict with e@uality and liberty"
Waldo contends what we must acce!t that both bureaucracy and democracy are desirable
and necessary and we should seek for an o!timum mix between the two '8ry, 1949, <56)"
14
Many researchers examine the assum!tion that democracy and bureaucracy are
incom!atible" #owe$er, they conclude that bureaucracies res!ond to local electoral
!olitics in way that reinforces and im!ro$es democratic controls '>chol; K #eadrick,
1991, 4<9:4,-)" .he traditional $iew is that bureaucrats who are members of !rofessions
are es!ecially ade!t at e$ading external controls because of their s!ecial ex!ertise and
ties to !rofessional grou!s outside go$ernment" #owe$er, bureaucratic !rofessionals
often ha$e no mono!oly of skills or information, hold no homogenous $alues, and are
subect to numerous checks" Fn the !ositi$e side, !rofessionalism !romotes bureaucratic
res!onsibility and accountability through !rofessional norms, as well as democratic
decision rules, and !ro$ides 0a &osetta >tone for deci!hering and res!onding to $arious
elements of !ublic interest1 '2earney K >inha, 1944, ,(1:,(9)" Moreo$er, we ha$e to
remember that some scholars in the field, including '&ohr, 194,), argue that bureaucrats
ha$e the legitimacy to rule based on the following rational ustifications9
1" .hey are com!etent, well: educated and trained and they do know things"
<" .hey ha$e long:term tenure which enables them to be ex!erts in the details !f the
!ublic issues in contrast to the !oliticians who ha$e a fixed !eriod"
5" 6ureaucrats are from !eo!le and they enoy the $alues and they ha$e the good
will to ser$e !eo!le and society" >o they should be gi$en the chance to rule and
!eo!le should not worry"
Conclusion-
7t has to be acknowledged that e$en though Weber belie$es rationality and
efficiency can be attained through bureaucracy, he was mindful of its shortcomings as
e$idenced by the fact that he also associated it with 0an o!!ressi$e routine ad$erse to
1,
!ersonal freedom1 '8ry, 1994, 55)" #e reali;es that bureaucracy limits indi$idual freedom
and makes it difficult if not im!ossible for indi$iduals to understand their acti$ities in
relation to the organi;ation as a whole" Most im!ortantly, bureaucracy fa$ors what Weber
called the 0cri!!led !ersonality of the s!ecialties1 '8ry, 1994, 55)"
Due to the irreconcilable differences between the administrati$e traditions that
were !resented by the founding fathers and the im!ossibility of managing a modern
society without bureaucracy, it is not sur!rising that scholars within the field of !ublic
administration ha$e so far failed to come u! with an ade@uate theoretical base to ex!lain
the relationshi! between bureaucracy and re!resentati$e go$ernment 'Warner, <--1)" .he
changes that ha$e taken !lace within the *merican society make it clear that the !roblems
administrators ha$e to contend with do not easily fit the existing structure of hierarchy
and authority based structure" #ence, the need to restructure or readust the bureaucracy
to ada!t to new and com!lex !roblems becomes a!!arent" =nfortunately, there is no
consensus regarding how the restructuring can be done and this issue will remain one of
the hot debates in the field of +* for the coming decades"
16
.eferences-
*lexander, Nennifer and &ichmond, >am" '<--()" .he Cider #ouse &ules" American
e!ie" of Public Administration, 5('1) ,1:64"
6arnard, Chester 7" '1966)" The #unctions of Executi!e" Cambridge, Massachusetts9
#ar$ard =ni$ersity +ress"
6lau, +eter M" and Meyer, Marshall W" '194()" Bureaucrac$ in Modern %ociet$" Gew
Pork, GP9 &andom #ouse"
6odley, Nohn #" '<--<)" .he +ower of >cale9 * 3lobal #istory *!!roach" M"E" >har!e
Cro;ier, Michel" '1964)" The Bureaucratic Phenomenon" Chicago9 =ni$ersity of Chicago
+ress"
8iner, #erman" '1941)" *dministrati$e res!onsibility in democratic go$ernment" Public
Administration e!ie", %ol" 19 55,:5,-
8oucault, Michel" '19(,)" Discipline and Punish: the Birth of the Prison" Gew Pork9
&andom #ouse"
8riedrich, C" '194-)" Public polic$ and the nature of administrati!e responsibilit$" 7n C" N"
8riedrich 'Ed"), +ublic +olicy9 5:<4" Cambridge9 #ar$ard =ni$ersity +ress"
8ry, 6rian" '1949)" Mastering Public Administration" Chatham, GN9 Chatham #ouse
+ublishers, 7nc"
3erth, #, and 3" Wright Mills" '1946)" #rom Max &eber: Essa$s in %ociolog$" Gew
Pork9 Fxford =ni$ersity +ress"
3oodsell, Charles" '1994)" The 'ase #or Bureaucrac$" Chatham #ouse +ublishers,
7nc", Gew Nersey, 1,<:1,9
2earney, &ichard K >inha, Chandan" '1944)" +rofessionalism and 6ureaucratic
&es!onsi$eness9 Conflict or Com!atibilityE Public Administration e!ie",
Nanuary:8ebruary 11944, ,(1:,(9
#ummel, &" '<--()" The Bureaucratic Experience: The Post(modern 'hallenge" .he
,
th
edition" Hibrary of Congress Cataloging:in:+ublication Data
#ummel, &" '1994)" Bureaucrac$. .he 7nternational Encyclo!edia of +ublic +olicy and
*dministration9 5-(
Hane, 8rederick" '1999)" 'urrent )ssues in Public Administration" 6edford >t"
Martins, >ixth Edition, 6oston9 1-5
1(
Mc>wite, F" C" '199()" *egitimac$ in Public Administration+ a Discourse Anal$sis" >age
+ublications, 7nc"
Merton, &obert" '19,<)" Bureaucratic %tructure and Personalit$ in eader in
Bureaucrac$" Gew Pork9 8ree +ress
&hienstein, Max" '19,4)" Max &eber on *a" in Econom$ and %ociet$" Gew Pork9 >imon
and >huster
&ohr, N" *" '194,)" +rofessionalism, Hegitimacy and the Constitution" Public
Administration ,uarterl$, 4'4), 4-1:414"
&ohr, Nohn *" '1946)" To un a 'onstitution, ,9:(5" '>eminar in +ublic
*dministration, Course +acket, Dr" 2enneth #anson)"
>chol;, Nohn K #edrick, 6arbara/ .wombly, Nim" '1991)" >treet:He$el +olitical
Controls o$er 8ederal 6ureaucracy" American Political %cience e!ie":",<9:4,-
>hafrit; N" K #yde *"C" '199() Classics of +ublic *dministration" Frlando9
#arcourt 6race College +ublishers"
>imon #" '1946)" Administrati!e Beha!ior" Gew Pork, GP9 8ree +ress"
.hom!son, %ictor" '1961)" Modern -rgani.ation" Gew Pork9 *lfred *" 2no!f"
%entriss, C" '<---)" Gew +ublic Management9 *n Examination of its influence
Fn contem!orary +ublic *ffairs and its 7m!act in >ha!ing the 7ntellectual
*genda of the 8ield" Administrati!e Theor$ / Praxis. '<<) 59,--:,14"
Waldo, D" '1944)" The Administrati!e %tate. Gew Pork9 #olmes and Meier +ublishing"
Weber, Max '1946)" Bureaucrac$. Fxford +ress
Wilson, N" O" '1949)" Bureaucrac$: &hat 0o!ernment Agencies Do and &h$ The$ Do )t.
6asic 6ooks
14