bureaucracy

Organization whose structure and operations are governed to a high degree by written rules and a hierarchy of offices; in its broadest sense, all forms of administration, and in its narrowest, rule by officials.

The early civilizations of Mesopotamia, Egypt, China, and India were organized hierarchically, thus forming the bureaucratic tradition of government. The German sociologist Max Weber saw the growth of bureaucracy in industrial societies as an inevitable reflection of the underlying shift from traditional authority to a rational and legal system of organization and control. In Weber's view, bureaucracy established a relation between legally enstated authorities and their subordinate officials. This relationship is characterized by defined rights and duties prescribed in written regulations.

Contemporary writers have highlighted the problems of bureaucracy, such as its inflexibility and rigid adherence to rules, so that today the term is often used as a criticism rather than its original neutral sense.

Bureaucracy in business In a rapidly changing business environment, organizations that can be less bureaucratic and more flexible will often gain a competitive edge. However, too little bureaucracy can lead to chaos, with employees working at cross purposes and their activities not being focused on clear objectives.

Bureaucracy in the civil service Although the term ‘bureaucracy’ is applicable to private and business organizations, it is also frequently applied to civil services and to the various agencies and corporations created by and associated with modern governments. The terms ‘bureaucracy’ and ‘bureaucratic’ have also acquired a pejorative meaning signifying such characteristics as an undue concern with rules and regulations, narrow-mindedness, excessive delay, the use of complex or obscure language (often called ‘officialese’), and a lack of concern for those outside the organization. These characteristics can be summed up by phrases like ‘red tape’, ‘Parkinson's law’, and ‘bumbledom’.

In spite of these connotations bureaucracy has become the subject of serious academic study by sociologists and other social scientists. Particular attention has been paid to the extent to which large organizations develop internal patterns of behaviour and the way in which these affect the operation of the organization. The behaviour patterns consist largely of norms to which individuals and groups of individuals working within the organization tend to conform. Hierarchies of authority and status develop and rules and processes become established, so that who deals with a particular matter and how it is dealt with is predetermined.

Bureaucracy in the political system In theory a bureaucracy is a subordinate organization subject to the direction of those empowered to take policy decisions, but in practice it is difficult for those with executive responsibility to control those who operate the administrative machine. This is particularly the case in government, where most civil servants and members of public agencies and corporations hold permanent appointments, whereas their political superiors have only temporary and often short periods of office. Moreover, the distinction between the administration of policy and its formation is difficult, if not impossible, to operate in practice, so that civil servants are closely involved in both. The experience and expertise acquired by civil servants places them in a strong position to influence policy, a position which is enhanced by the fact that politicians can neither deal personally with every matter nor are they necessarily interested in everything with which modern governments concern themselves.

The most important problems arising from the growth of bureaucracy are a tendency by an organization to seek to extend its power and jurisdiction, a form of organizational imperialism; and the development of an inbuilt resistance to change, especially changes which affect the internal structures and norms of the organization.

Control of the bureaucracy Efforts to control bureaucracy have taken various forms. In totalitarian states bureaucracies have sometimes been subjected to purges designed to enforce changes of personnel. In the USA the president has, through the ‘spoils system’, the power to appoint individuals to posts in the higher echelons of the federal civil service, so that when a new president takes office he or she is able to place supporters in key positions in the bureaucracy.

In Britain career bureaucrats in the civil service have in recent years been increasingly complemented by political advisers, reflecting the outlook of ministers more accurately than permanent officials. The use of temporary consultants, brought in from the private sector, has also increased.

The effectiveness and efficiency of central and local bureaucracies has also been tested by bodies such as the Audit Commission, which is concerned with local government and the health service, and the National Audit Office (NAO), which oversees the work of central departments. Both bodies issue reports on their findings, the NAO being headed by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, answerable directly to the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of the House of Commons.

Inevitably a bureaucracy develops its own life and momentum. For instance, during the politically unstable life of the Fourth Republic the French civil service was a crucial island of stability and continuity in public administration. The major problem of bureaucracy in a liberal democracy is therefore that of ensuring that it remains ultimately subordinate to its political masters and through them to the electorate.