Traditional approach of Public Administration

Max Weber :-

Introduction:-

In the classical approach to administration, Weberian model of bureaucracy finds a central place.
Max Weber is the first thinker who has systematically studied the bureaucracy. He has provided a
theoretical framework and basis for understanding bureaucracy. Max Weber’s analysis influenced
many modern writers on bureaucracy. Weber, apart from bureaucracy, wrote on various aspects of
the society ranging from history, religion to legitimacy and domination. Weber was founder of
modern sociology and a greatest scholar among the pioneers of administrative thought. He was one
of the towering thinkers of the twentieth century. The Weberian ideal type bureaucracy continues to
be the dominant paradigm in the public administration.

The Weber’s Theory of Bureaucracy

The term “bureaucracy” finds its origin from the French word “bureau” which means desk, and a
government which is run from table is called a bureaucratic government. The word implies a
particular system of administration.

Historically, it has been associated with the rule of government and governmental officials. In
this form of the government there is concentration of power in the hands of departments.
bureaucracy as a form of administration that is found in formal organizations pursuing a wide
variety of goals.

As a technical term , “bureaucracy” is associated with Max Weber. He gave it a precise

definition and suggested that it was the best administrative form for the rational pursuit of
organizational goals.

Definition of Bureaucracy:
1. Max Weber:
Bureaucracy is “a type of hierarchical organization which is designed rationally to co-ordinate
the work of many individuals in pursuit of large scale administrative tasks.
Weber also said that “bureaucracies are organized according to rational principles, officials
ranked in a hierarchical order and operations are characterized by impersonal rules.”

Weber – The Prime Architect of the “Theory of Bureaucracy”:

Weber is the first sociologist to analyze the functioning of bureaucracy from the sociological
point of view. Weber’s theory of bureaucracy is a significant contribution to the field of
sociology. Weber’s interest in the nature of power and authority and his realization of the
inevitability of rationalization in the operation of large-scale modern organizations – led him to
establish a “theory of bureaucracy.”

Weber felt that the operation of modern large-scale enterprises or organizations in the political,
administrative, and economic fields would be impossible without bureaucracy. Bureaucratic co-
ordination of activities is the distinctive mark of the modern era, he maintained.

According to Weber, bureaucracy refers to an instrument that has become indispensable “for the
rational attainment of the goals of any organization in industrial society.” Bureaucracies can be
understood as large-scale formal organizations of the modern society with specialized functions.
Bureaucratization and rationalization go together, because bureaucracies are organized according
to rational principles.

MAX WEBER: THE CONCEPT OF BUREAUCRACY:-

Weber never defined bureaucracy. He only described it as “an administrative body of appointed
officials”.. He also described its characteristics. Bureaucracy includes explicitly appointed officials
only leaving out the elected ones. Weber wrote a great deal about the place of the official in a
modern society. For him, it has an increasingly important type of social role. As in the case of
authority, Weber categorized bureaucracy in to (1) patrimonial bureaucracy found in traditional and
charismatic authorities and (2) legal-rational bureaucracy found only in the legal type of authority.
Weber identified certain features of legal-rational bureaucracy.

Features of Legal-Rational Bureaucracy:-

The model of legal-rational bureaucracy described by Weber has the following features:
(1) Official business is conducted on a continuous, regulated basis,
(2) An administrative agency functions in accordance with stipulated rules and is characterised by
three interrelated attributes; (a) the powers and functions of each official is defined in terms of
impersonal criteria, (b) the official is given matching authority to carry out his responsibility and (c)
the means of compulsion at his disposal are strictly limited and the conditions under which their
employment is legitimate are clearly defined,
(3) Every official and every office is part of the hierarchy of authority. Higher officials or offices
perform supervision and the lower officers and officials have the right to appeal,
(4) Officials do not own the resources necessary for rendering the duties, but they are accountable for
use of official resources. Official business and private affairs, official revenue and private income are
strictly separated,
(5) Offices can not be appropriated by the incumbents as private property, and
(6) Administration is conducted on the basis of written documents.

Features of Officials:-

Weber also discussed in detail, as a part of his model of bureaucracy, the features of officials. They
are:
(1) The staff members are personally free, observing only the impersonal duties of their offices,
(2) They are appointed to an official position on the basis of the contract,
(3) An official exercises authority delegated to him in accordance with impersonal rules, and his
loyalty is expressed through faithful execution of his official duties,

(4) His appointment and job placements depend upon his professional qualifications,
(5) His administrative work is full time occupation,
(6) His work is rewarded by regular salary and by prospects of career advancement,
(7) There is a clear cut hierarchy of officials, and
(8) He is subjected to a unified control and disciplinary system.

MAX WEBER: ELEMENTS OF BUREAUCRACY:-

When we closely observe the above-mentioned features of bureaucracy we can identify certain
important elements of Weberian model of bureaucracy.
They are:

1.Impersonal Order
Weber emphasised that the official should perform their duties in an impersonal manner. The
subordinates should follow both in the issuance of command and their obedience impersonal order.
According to Merton, “authority, the power of control which derives from an acknowledged status,
inheres in the office, not in the particular person who performs the official role”. (Prasad. et. al.
p.82). It talks about the de-personalisation of relationship in the organisations.

2.Rules
Rules are the basis for the functioning of the legal-rational authority. Officials are bound by the rules.
The rules regulate the conduct of an office. Their rational application requires specialised training. In
this regard Merton felt that adherence to rules originally conceived as a means, becomes an end in
itself. Rules become more important than the goals of the organisation.

3.Sphere of Competence
It involves a sphere of obligation to perform functions, which have been marked off as a part of a
systematic division of labour. It also implies provision of the incumbent with the necessary authority
to carry out the functions.

4.Hierarchy
According to Weber every office and every official is a part of a hierarchy. Under this system the
lower office functions under the control of higher office. He attaches greater importance to the
principle of hierarchy in the organisation of office.

5.Separation of Personal and Public Ends

Weber pleads for separation of officials from their ownership of the means of administration.
Officials cannot use his office position for personal ends. The office property is separated from
personal property; at the same time the official is accountable for the use of office property.

6.Written Documents
Written documents are the heart of Weberian bureaucracy. All administrative acts, decisions and
rules are recorded in writing. These documents make the administration accountable to the people
and provide a ready reference for future action.
7.Monocratic Type
It means certain functions performed by bureaucracy cannot be performed by any other organisation.
They monopolise certain functions and only the authorised official can perform that function, makes
them monocratic in nature.
For all types of authority, Weber wrote “the fact of the existence and continuing functioning of an
administrative staff is vital. It is indeed, the existence of such activity which is usually meant by the
term organisation”. (Bertram Gross, p.139). Weber considered pure or monocratic bureaucracy is the
most rational form of administrative staff. He further felt that “it is superior to any other form in
precision, in stability, in the stringency of discipline and in its reliability. It thus, makes possible a
particularly high degree of calculability of results for the heads of organisations and for those acting
in relation to it. It is finally superior both in intensive efficiency and in the scope of its operations,
and is formally capable of applications to all kinds of administrative tasks”. (Bertram Gross, p.139).
For bureaucratic administration is, other things being equal, always, from a formal technical point of
view, the most rational type. According to Weber “for the needs of mass administration today, it is
(bureaucracy) completely indispensable. The choice is only that between bureaucracy and
dilettantism in the field of administration”. (Bertram Gross, p.140). Thus Weber believed that
rational bureaucracy is technically superior and capable of attaining high degree of efficiency.

MAX WEBER: LIMITS ON BUREAUCRACY:-

Weber while emphasising on the necessity of bureaucracy was aware of the fact that, the bureaucracy
has inherent tendency of accumulation of power. The sources of this power could be seen in the
special knowledge, which the official poses. In the course of his duties he acquired a great deal of
concrete information much of it artificially restricted by ideas of confidentiality and secrecy.
Nevertheless he was convinced that bureaucratisation was inevitable and that bureaucrats gained po
In order to prevent the bureaucracy from acquiring powers Weber suggested certain mechanism for
limiting the scope of systems of authority in general and bureaucracy in particular. These
mechanisms fall in to five major categories. The categories are: (1) collegiality, (2) separation of
powers, (3) Weber resisted any identification of bureaucracy with rule by officials. 3.amateur of
administration, (4) direct democracy, and (5) representation. (Martin Albrow, pp.47-49). They are
explained below:

Collegiality :-
In a monocratic bureaucracy, Weber meant that at each stage of the official hierarchy one person and
one person only, had the responsibility for taking a decision. This makes the bureaucracy more
powerful. To prevent this Weber suggested the principle of collegiality involving others in the
decision making process. Weber considered that collegiality would always have an important role to
play in limiting bureaucracy. But it has disadvantages in terms of speed of decision and attribution of
responsibility.

Separation of Powers
Separation of powers meant dividing responsibility and functions between two or more bodies. For
any decision to emerge a compromise between them had to be reached. This will avoid monopoly of
decision by a single body or person. Weber regarded such a system as inherently unstable. One of the
authorities was bound to have edge over the other.

Amateur Administration
Since there is possibility of professional administration become powerful, Weber suggested the
involvement of amateur administration in certain activities. Such men have sufficient public esteem
to command and general confidence. But this system could not measure up to the demands for
expertise which modern society made, and where the professionals assisted amateur it is always the
professional who dominated the scene.
Direct Democracy:-

To limit the power of bureaucracy Weber suggested direct democracy, where the officials were
guided by and answerable to an assembly. Short term of office, permanent possibility of recall was
designed to serve the purpose of direct democracy. But this system is possible only in small
organisations and in local governments.

Representation:-

Another method of limiting bureaucracy is sharing of authority of bureaucracy with the elected
representatives of the people. With this method it is possible to control the power of the bureaucracy.
But here, there is a possibility of representatives being bureaucratised. However Weber thought that
through this medium there was a greater possibility of check on bureaucracy.
Through all the above means Weber wanted to limit the powers of the bureaucracy.
Characteristics of Bureaucracy:
Max Weber was the first to give a detailed Political account of the development of bureaucracy.
According to him, bureaucracy reveals the following characteristics.

1. Fixed Official Jurisdiction Area:

Bureaucracies normally have their own official fixed jurisdiction. Bureaucracy consists of
various statuses each of which has its own fixed official duties. There are clear cut written rules
governing each status.

2. Hierarchy of Authority:
Bureaucracy has its own hierarchy of statuses. Officials who occupy these statuses are governed
by the principle of super-ordination and subordination. There is the supervision of the lower
offices by the higher ones.

3. Clear-cut Division of Labour:

The entire task of the bureaucratic system is governed by a stipulated system of division of
labour. Who should do what work and who should shoulder what responsibility is decided by
this system.

4. Appointment Based on Eligibility:

Bureaucracy has its own system of selecting employees and giving them promotions on the basis
of seniority, technical competence, specialised knowledge or skill.

5. Fixed Salary, Allowance and Pension:

The officials of the bureaucracy are paid monthly salary and other types of allowances and
pensions as per the written rules.

6. Office and Maintenance of Files:

Bureaucracy as an organization functions through an office wherein all the matters and
transactions relating to its area of operation are maintained in the form of files. It has a system of
written documents defining its procedures and manner of functioning.

7. Appointment of officials on full time and long term service basis:

Appointment of officials in a bureaucracy is normally made by the higher officials and not by
election. Normally the position of the bureaucrat is held for life as specified by the contract or
order.

8. Difference between private matter and official issues:

The officials of the bureaucracy are expected to make a clear distinction between the official
issues and pure private or personal matters. They are not entitled to make use of official facilities
for personal needs except as defined by written rules.

9. Supervision of work by higher officials:

Officials of the bureaucracy are expected to work according to the written rules. Still there is the
system of supervision of the work of lower officials by the higher officials.

10. Systematisation of official relations with officials:

The officials of bureaucracy maintain contact and communication among themselves in a
particular way. Orders and communications among them always proceed through “proper
channels.”

11. Political Neutrality:

Officials of bureaucracy are expected to be very objective in the official discharge of business.
They are expected to be politically neutral in their dealings.

12. Guidance by past procedures:

Bureaucrats are mostly guided by the past procedures. A good bureaucrat is one who always tries
to be upto date with the subject with which not only he is dealing at present but he may be
required to deal at any subsequent stage.

The characteristics stated above, cannot be found in any existing bureaucracy in their true or
complete form. Never before in history such bureaucracies existed. As Max Weber has said, the
concept of bureaucracy associated with these rules represents the “ideal types.” The existing bu-
reaucracies or any particular instance of a bureaucracy can only be compared with or evaluated
in relation to this ideal type. Weber was quite aware of the increasing importance of the
bureaucracies in the modern world.
Factors Contributing to the Development of Bureaucracy:
Bureaucracies did exist in the ancient world in the great empires of India, China, Rome, Greece,
Egypt and so on. They are found today. As Weber has rightly prophesied the importance of
bureaucracy has reached immeasurable proportions in the modern world.

According to Weber, following factors contributed a great deal to the development of modern
bureaucracy.

(i) The development of money economy guarantees a constant income for maintaining bureauc-
racy through a system of taxation.

(ii) Modern industries and states which require a big army of administrative officials necessitated
bureaucracy.

(iii) Qualitative changes in the administrative tasks also led to bureaucratization. Modern states
which claim themselves to be “welfare states” have to maintain an elaborate system of transport
and communication including mass media. They naturally tend towards bureaucratic system.

(iv) Bureaucracy as a form of organization seems to be technically superior to any other form of
organization.

(v) Demand for objective experts: The modern culture demands “the personally detached and
strictly objective experts.” This nature of the modern culture encourages the development of
bureaucracy.

(vi) Mass Democracy: Modern political parties are functioning on a mass scale which necessi-
tates bureaucracies.

(vii) Concentration of material means: The development of big capitalist enterprises and the
giant public organizations such as the state or army require the modern bureaucratic system.

(viii) Rational interpretation of law: Modern states guarantee to their citizens equality before law.
It is a guarantee against arbitrariness. This has given rise to the bureaucratic form of
administration and judiciary.
Functional and Dysfunctional Aspects of Bureaucracy
Positive or Functional Aspects of Bureaucracy:
1. Bureaucracy provides opportunity for division of labour:
Some of the modern organizations consist of lakhs and millions of members. Such organizations
are institutionalized through bureaucracies.

2. Performance of complicated tasks:

Some of the complicated tasks of the modern society such as, conducting census, capturing
criminals, collecting taxes, arranging for voting in elections, etc. are more efficiently undertaken
in bureaucracy.

3. Performance of repetitive tasks:

Some of the modern bureaucracies, for example, industrial corporations, universities, advertising
agencies, etc. regularly repeat their work. Modern bureaucracies have been able to perform that
work without much difficulty.

4. Maintenance of law and order:

There are certain organizations [such as police, court, army, temple or church, religion, college,
etc.] that deal with people’s actions in a normative manner. Here the right type of behavior is to
be encouraged and the wrong type is too regulated. Bureaucratic method is better suited to do
this.

5. Mobilization of resources and their rightful usage:

The heads or the leaders of the state could mobilize and centralize material resources and make
necessary arrangements for their most effective use only through bureaucracy.

In feudal times, for example, power was dispersed in a variety of centres. Only through bureau-
cratic machinery at present economic resources are being mobilized while in the pre-modern age
they remained untapped or improperly managed.

“Bureaucratic organisation is to Weber, the privileged instrumentality that has shaped the
modern polity, the modern economy, the modern technology.” Just as a machine production is
superior to hand-made articles so the bureaucratic types of organisation are technically superior
to all other forms of administration.

6. Control of the waste of time:

In comparison with any other type of organisation bureaucracy has been found to be less
expensive, less conflicting and more efficient and useful.

Negative Aspects or Dysfunctional Aspects of Bureaucracy:

Bureaucracy has its own ugly face. It has its own demerits and Weber, the champion of the
theory of bureaucracy, was aware of this. Abraham and Morgan have stated: “Having granted its
virtues and its unquestionable advancement of modern society, Weber was the first to concede
the vices of bureaucracy.”

Some of the main drawbacks or dysfunctions of bureaucracy may be enlisted here.

1. Static Rules for Dynamic Situations:

The unchanging static rules of bureaucracy many a time fail in its very purpose of serving the
human needs. Bureaucracy becomes dysfunctional when the rules remain static even while the
social situations undergo fast changes.

2. Unnecessary Waste of Time and Redtapism:

Since there is a hierarchical arrangement in this system every paper or file is to pass through
several stages before a final decision is taken. This delay leads to waste of time and sometimes to
unwanted consequences.

3. Quarrel among Officials:

As Dahrendorf has pointed out junior and senior officials of bureaucracy always quarrel among
themselves lowering its dignity and efficiency. In fact, this quarrel among these officials has
necessitated the beginning of trade unions.

4. Blind Rules and Uncreative Officials:

Officials of the bureaucracy become rule bound and extremely formal. They act according to the
written rules, and verbally stick on to them. “The uniform and rational procedures of
bureaucratic practice largely prevent spontaneity, creativity and individual initiative. The
impersonality of official conduct tends to produce “specialists without spirit. Weber also wrote:
“It is horrible to think that the world would one day be filled with little cogs, little men clinging
to little jobs and striving towards the bigger ones.

5. Ever Expanding Army of Employees:

Bureaucracy goes on expanding and new members are recruited regularly whether there is a need
for the same or not. Hence it becomes expensive at one time; officials who become lethargic give
more importance to their salary, promotion, increments, allowances, facilities, etc. rather than to
the services.

6. Human Relations are made to become Mechanical:

Too much of bureaucratisation leads to depersonalisation. As a result, human relations become
extremely mechanical devoid of human touch. Weber too had foreseen “the possibility of men
trapped in their specialised routines with little awareness of the relationship between their jobs
and the organisation as a whole.”

7. Bureaucracy unsuited to Face Emergencies:

Officials of the bureaucracy find it difficult to face an emergency situation. They search for
solutions only within the framework of existing rules and procedures and do not take the risk of
facing the challenges.

8. Other Disadvantages or Deficiencies:

(a) Bureaucracies become corrupt and puppets in the hands of the vested interests:
Since bureaucrats have vast powers, vested interests try to corrupt them and provide them all
temptations to get decisions in their favour. Ex.: The Tehalka Dotcom episode which has rocked
the Indian Parliamentary discussions during the recent days is an example in this regard.

(b) Bureaucracies tending to exist even after the achievement of their goals: Ex.:
Bureaucratic committee formed to offer famine relief or flood relief, or earthquake relief to the
people may continue to exist even after the settlement of the problem.
(c) New Despotism:
It is said that bureaucrats are new despots. Since they have knowledge and expertise, they wish
that even decision should be taken to suit their whims and wishes.

(d) Superiority Complex:

Usually bureaucrats come from educated families and enjoy certain social prestige and economic
privileges. After joining services they enjoy more of it. They thus suffer from superiority
complex.

Weber who had recognised some of the dysfunctions of bureaucracy also knew about its inevi-
tability. Bureaucracy today has come to stay. We have to find out ways and means of making it
more efficient and less problematic. In the absence of any other alternative, it seems that the
present bureaucracy will reign supreme in the years to come.

Weber argued that the bureaucratisation of the modern world has led to its depersonalisation.
The more fully it is realised the more it depersonalises itself. The bureaucrats may function as
“emotionally detached” “professional experts.” The bureaucrat functions to the exclusion of
feelings and sentiments, of love and hatred in the execution of official tasks.

According to Weber, bureaucratisation and rationalisation are almost an “inescapable fate.” Like
a reformist, Weber hoped that some charismatic leader might arise in future to provide some
relief to mankind which is gripped by the tentacles of bureaucracy.

Like Marx, he never visualised an emancipator struggle or revolution that would help them to
become free from the shackles of bureaucracy. Weber thought it more probable that “the future
would be an ‘iron cage’ rather than a Garden of Eden.”

Principles of Bureaucratic theory

1) Job specialization: – Jobs are divided into simple, routine and fixed category based on competence
and functional specialization.

2) Authority hierarchy: – Officers are organized in a n hierarchy in which higher officer controls
lower position holders i.e. superior controls subordinates and their performance of subordinates and lower
staff could be controlled.
3) Formal selection: – All organizational members are to be selected on the basis of technical
qualifications and competence demonstrated by training, education or formal examination.

4) Formal rules and regulations: – To ensure uniformity and to regulate actions of employees,
managers must depend heavily upon formal organizational rules and regulations. Thus, rules of law lead
to impersonality in interpersonal relations.

5) Impersonality: – Rules and controls are applied uniformly, avoiding involvement with personalities
and preferences of employees. Nepotism and favoritism are not preferred.

6) Career orientation: – Career building opportunity is offered highly. Life long employment and
adequate protection of individuals against arbitrary dismissal is guaranteed. Here managers are
professional officials rather than owners units they manage. They work for a fixed salaries and pursue
their career within the organization.

Significance of Bureaucratic Organisation:

Bureaucratic organisations have the following merits:
1. These organisations are rational and, therefore, ideal forms of organisations. Rationality leads
to efficiency of operations.

2. Managing organisations through formal chain of command, by highly qualified and skilled
managers leads to optimum utilisation of resources.

3. Depersonalisation of management functions results in uniformity of operations and fair and

equal treatment of all the workers.

4. Bureaucratic structures not only increase organisational efficiency (through knowledge, unity
of command, individual subordination, less frictions and tensions etc.) but also facilitate growth
of large-scale organisations.

Limitations of Bureaucratic Organisation:

1. Too much emphasis on formal rules and procedures ignores the social needs, desires and
sentiments of human beings.

2. It hampers human creativity and innovativeness as there is impersonal approach in dealing

with people. This affects personal growth and development of employees. Human beings have
emotions and slight deviation in rules sometimes can be effective in decision-making. However,
bureaucratic organisations do not allow this flexibility.

3. It ignores the role of ‘informal organisation’ which both supplements and complements formal
organisations in achieving the formal goals.

4. The hierarchy of authority denies the benefits of open communication. This may not bring the
desired level of efficiency.

5. Strict adherence to rules, regulations and procedures makes the rules an end. The organisation
structures tend to become procedure-oriented rather than goal-oriented.

People are judged on the basis of how well they observe the rules and not the results. The rules
may, thus, become the objectives and objectives may become secondary.

If the performance of a department is measured on the basis of whether or not it has spent the
amount allocated in the budget for a specific period, the focus of the department will be more on
spending the budgeted amount rather than the purpose for which the amount is spent. This may
not always be productive for the organisation.

6. Division of jobs into specific categories creates water tight compartments amongst the jobs
and complicates their control and coordination. People become so specialised in their tasks that
they do not see beyond their activities to coordinate them with activities of rest of the
organisation.

7. Putting rules and regulations in writing delays processing of work.

8. It leads to conflict between the organisation and individuals. People want to work in open and
interactive environment and use their innovative abilities at the work place but organisation over
emphasises rules and regulations. A bureaucratic organisation, thus, works against the basic
nature of human beings.
9. It has a closed system perspective where organisations have no or little interaction with the
environment. It assumes rigid organisation structure which is not adaptive to environmental
changes. Everything is done according to rules.

Modern organisations operate in the dynamic environment and constantly interact with the
environment to survive in the long-run. There is constant inflow and outflow of information to
the environment. Bureaucratic organisation structure is, thus, not suitable in the contemporary
volatile and dynamic environment.

In this regard, it is asserted that Weber did not suggest good or bad bureaucracy. Neither did he
assert that ‘ideal bureaucracy’ existed in practice. Robert M. Fulmer states: “Weber was
suggesting that an efficient model for large operations consisted in simply setting up a bureau for
each important job. He evidently did not foresee the abuses that could proliferate when
organisations began to outgrow the men who made them.”

Weber was the first to develop a formal and systematic concept of authority and his assumption
that rational and efficient economic behaviour dominates human activity holds good in most of
the organisations even today.

MAX WEBER’S BUREAUCRACY: RELEVANCE

In spite of criticism from the several scholars, the ideas of Weber on bureaucracy continue to be
relevant to understand the present administrative system. So far we have not been able to evolve
an alternative model to Weber’s bureaucracy. Weber is right in saying that when we are
accustomed to the bureaucracy we cannot think of any other alternative. It is highly useful for
managing large-scale organisations. His ideas on selection of officials based on qualifications,
utility of written documents in administration, hierarchy etc., can be seen in any administration
of the present day. The monocratic bureaucracy proposed by Weber is superior to all other forms
of organisations in achieving the prescribed objectives. To overcome some of the problems of
the bureaucracy, we can only bring reforms in it, but cannot replace it with any other
organisation. Whether it is capitalist society or a socialist society, irrespective of the nature of
economy, we find the bureaucracy playing a very important role. The people who talk about the
de bureaucratisation of the society have not been able to find a viable alternative to the
bureaucracy. Even in the present context of liberalisation and privatisation, which emphasises on
a minimalist state, cannot escape the necessity of bureaucracy to perform some of the functions
of the state. We cannot think of the implementation of all the welfare and developmental
programmes without the help of bureaucracy. The voluntary organisations and other forms of
people’s organisations can only supplement the bureaucracy, but they can not substitute the
bureaucracy. In the context of developing countries, people look to the bureaucracy for their day-
to-day requirements.
Hence, the bureaucracy of Weberian type continues to find its relevance even today.

CONCLUSION:-Weber can be considered as one of the eminent thinkers of twentieth century.

Though he has written extensively on various subjects, his contribution to the theory of
bureaucracy is highly valued. Today we can see it in practice in all the societies of the world.
Weber being proved correct when he said that the societies once governed by the bureaucracy
can never get rid of it. His ideas on authority, rationality of bureaucracy continues to be relevant
for the present day society. Most of the time, those who criticise the Weberian model are not
actually criticising Weber, but the present day bureaucracy, which reflect the changes that are
taking place in the contemporary period. Bureaucracy might need certain reforms to make it
more relevant to the society.

Woodrow Wilson:-