Moore, Patricia (2005).

‘Bureaucracy and Bureaucrats,’ in Donijo

Robbins (ed.) Handbook of Public Sector Economics, New York: Marcel
Dekker, Inc.

The word bureaucracy actually meant something positive. It meant a rational

and efficient model of organization (Osborne and Gaebler, 1992; Moore,
2005). Charles Goodsell concluded that American government bureaucracies
work very well but do not get the credit they deserve (Goodsell, 2002).

Definition of Bureaucracy: Bureaucracy is, literally, ruled by officials. The

word ‘bureau’ comes from the Old French term ‘burel’ meaning the cloth
used to cover a writing desk or bureau. The second half of the word comes
from the Greek word kratos, meaning rule, just as democracy. Today, the
bureaucracy refers to the salaried officials who conduct the detailed business
of public administration, advising on and applying policy decisions.

Characteristics of Bureaucracy:
1. well-defined hierarchy of positions,
2. Division of labor and specialization,
3. Formal written rules and procedures,
4. Impersonal relations,
5. Maintenance of formal records, and
6. Professionalization

Functions of Bureaucracy: The main functions of the bureaucracy are

implementation, rulemaking, and administration (Jansson, 2003).
Implementation is the process of putting laws into practice, and it is the core
responsibility of the bureaucracy. As implementers, the bureaucracy
executes the decisions of Congress, the president, and the courts
(Wildavsky, 1994).
1. Law is passed.
2. Law is sent to appropriate agency to develop rules.
3. Agency develops preliminary rules.
4. Proposed rules are placed in the digest for comments.
5. Rules are finalized.
6. Rules are enforced.
In American culture the term bureaucracy has a very negative connotation.
I asked a class of undergraduate students to use one word to describe
bureaucracy. Their responses included waste, inefficiency, red tape, rules,
paperwork, formality, unresponsiveness, idleness, and rigidity. These
negative descriptions of bureaucracy are not limited to students. This
animosity towards the bureaucracy is deeply rooted in American culture. It
even extends to the American cinema (Lee and Paddock, 2001). It is
relatively easy to find examples of evil bureaucrats in American films.
William Niskanen, a professor of economics at the University of California,
Berkeley, has consistently argued that government bureaucracies are too
large and must be curtailed (Niskanen, 1994). In Niskanen’s opinion, the
bureaucracy tends to produce more services than the public needs. In
addition, he argues that government is a monopoly; therefore, it has no
incentive to improve service quality. Niskanen’s suggestions to improve the
performance of the bureaucracy include privatization, increased competition
among agencies, and tighter legislative and executive oversight. (Moore
2005:142)

Max Weber’s Theory of Bureaucracy

School of thought Central focus Historical era Representative
Theorists

The theory of bureaucracy Identifying the 1890s-1910s Max Weber

characteristics that
facilitate adminis.
trative efficiency.

Max Weber’s Theory of Social Change

Political Theory and Administration
Three Types of Legitimate Authority:
Charismatic authority,
Traditional, and
Legal Rational.

REFERENCES
Abbot v. Burke (1994). 135 N.J. 444.
Aberbach, J. (1990). Keeping a Watchful Eye: The Politics of Congressional Oversight, Washington, D. C:
Brookings Institution.
Balla, S., and Gromley, W. (2004). Bureaucracy and Democracy, Washington, D.C: C.Q. Press.
Bardes, B. et al. (2000). American Government and Politics Today: The Essentials, Stamford, CT:
Thomson Learning.
Bennis, W. (1966). Changing Organizations: Essays on the Development and Evolution of Human
Organization, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Buchanan, J., and Downs, A. (1962). Tullock G. The Calculus of Consent. Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan Press.
Bushkin A, Schaen S. (1975). The Privacy Act of 1974. A Reference Manual for Compliance, McLean,
VA: System Development Corporation.
Clark, P., and Wilson, J. (1961). Incentive systems: a theory of organizations. Administrative Science
Quarterly 6, September, 129–166.
Denhardt, R. (2003). Public Administration: An Action Orientation. Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth
Learning.
Downs, A. (1967). Inside Bureaucracy. Boston: Little Brown & Company.
Garvey, G. (1993). Facing the Bureaucracy. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.
Goodsell, C. (2001). The Case for Bureaucracy: A Public Administration Polemic. New York: Seven
Bridges.
Helco, H. (1978). Issue network and the executive establishment. In King A, (ed.) The New American
Political System. Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
Jansson, B. (2003). Becoming an Effective Policy Advocate from Policy Practice to Social Justice. Pacific
Grove, CA: Wadsworth Brooks/Cole.
Kaufman, H. (2001). Major players: bureaucracies in American government. Public Administration Review
61(1): 18–42.
Lee, M. (2001). Paddock S. Strange but true tales from Hollywood: the bureaucrat as movie hero. Public
Administration Management: An Interactive Journal 6(4): 166–194.
Lemay, M. (2002). Public Administration. New York: Thomson and Wadsworth Publishing.
Mansbridge, J. (1990). The rise and fall of self-interest in the explanation of political life. In: Beyond Self-
interest, Mansbridge, J., ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 3–22.
Mayer, K. (2002). With the Stroke of the Pen. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
McCubbins, M. (2002). Abdication or delegation? Congress, the bureaucracy, and the delegation dilemma.
Regulation 30, 22(2), pp. 30–37.
McCubbins, M. and Schwartz, T. (1984). Congressional oversight overlooked: police patrol versus fire
alarms. American Journal of Political Science 28, 165–179.
McKinley, V. (1995). Sunrises without sunsets. Can sunset laws reduce regulation? Regulation 18(4)
Washington D.C. (http://www.cato. org/pubs/regulation/reg18v4d.html).
Merton, R. (1957). Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe, IL: Illinois Free Press.
Mikesell, J. (2003). Fiscal Administration: Analysis and Application for the Public Sector. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Milakovich, M, Gordon G. (2004). Public Administration in America, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Niskanen, W. (1994). Bureaucracy and Public Economics, Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Ogal, M., and Rockman, B. (1990). ‘Overseeing oversight, new departures and old problems,’ Legislative
Quarterly, 15 February, 5–24.
Osbourne, D, Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing American Government, Boston: Addison-Wesley Publishing
Co.
Perrow, C. (1986). Complex Organization, New York: Random House.
Pinkerton, J. (1995). What Comes Next? The End of Big Government and the New Paradigm Ahead, New
York: Hyperion.
Pressman, J and Wildavsky, A. (1994). Implementation,Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Rourke, F. (1984). Bureaucracy, Politics and Public Policy, Boston: Little Brown Publishers.
Simmons, J. (2003). ‘Economic theories of bureaucracy’. In: Encyclopedia of Public Administration and
Public Policy, J. Rabin (ed.) New York: Marcel Dekker Publishers.
Sowa, J., Selden, E, and Coleman, S. (2003). Administrative discretion active representation and
expansion: the theory of representative bureaucracy, Public Administration Review 63: 700–710.
Thompson, V. (1961). Modern Organization. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
Waldo, D. (1952). ‘Development and theory of democratic administration’, American Political Science
Review 44. March.
Watson, R. (2001). Public Administration: Cases in Managerial Role-Playing, New York: Longman.
Weber, M. (2002). Bureaucracy. In Shafritz J, Ott, S. (eds.) Classics of Organization Theory. Orlando:
Harcourt Court Publishers.
Weber, M. (2004). General Economic History. New York: Dover Publishers.
Wilson, J. (2003). Bureaucracy. New York: Basic Books Inc.
Wilson, W. (1887). ‘The study of public administration,’ Political Science Review Quarterly 2 June, pp.
197–222.

Max Weber 1864-1920

Biography of Weber:
Max Weber was born in Germany in 1864. He studied law,
economics, and philosophy first, at the University of Heidelberg,
and later at the University of Berlin. After completing doctoral
degree he joined, as a professor of economics, both at the
University of Frelberg in 1894 and at the University of Heidelberg
in 1896. He worked as a university professor only five years.
Because of his self-driven and hard-working nature he got mental
breakdown since 1898 to five years, and suffering as a semi-
invalid person for the following four years.

To maintain personal and family expenses he began writhing and

researching as a private scholar since 1903 for the rest of his the
whole life. Weber published his most famous but controversial
writing on ‘’The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism’’
as a series of work. He further focused his study to the
comparative study of religious, politics, and economic institutions,
but he was unable to complete his efforts of focal part of his
sociological work on ‘rationalization of economic and political
life’. Although in 1919 he attached to teach at the University of
Munich where he died a few months later by the pneumonia at the
age of 56. Part I of ‘Theory of Social and Economic
Organization’, was published in 1947 into English version after
his death.
Introduction:
‘Theory of bureaucracy’ is first, fully formulated, described and
analyzed by the German sociologist Max Weber in the early 1900s.
His intention was just to describe, and to explore its essential
characteristics of the modern bureaucratic form of administration.
He was not concerned with the organizational effectiveness from
his work (Thompson 2005:41). He gave his efforts on the
following areas:

 That administrative rationality is achieved by dividing work

into specialized administrative function;

 Assigning each function to a specific office;

 Placing clear limits on each office’s scope of authority;

 Arranging all offices in a hierarchy of authority;

 Organizing officials on a career basis; and

 Requiring them to carry out directives with strict discipline

and in accordance with clearly delineated rules.

We have to keep it in mind that Weber gave his focus on from

broadly historical and comparative prospective, and it is closely
connected with public administration/management and government
performance forever.
Political Authority and Administration

Max Weber identifies three types of legitimate authority in

government, and that authorities reflect the structure and nature of the
administration. He characterized these three types of legitimate
authorities as charismatic, traditional, and legal-rational.

Charismatic Authority: Charismatic authority is based on the

extraordinary personal qualities and
deeds of the leader. Followers accept the
legitimacy of the leader’s authority
because of acts of heroism, extraordinary
religious sanctity, exemplary character,
supernatural powers, or demagogic
appeals. For example, Mahatma Gandhi,
Martin Luther King, MaotzeTung, B.P.
Koirala etc.

Traditional authority: Traditional authority is based on

longstanding traditions that define who
have the right to govern. The right is
usually based on the principle of
hereditary succession. Followers accept
the legitimacy of the leader’s authority
because they believe in the sanctity of
doing things the way they have always
been done. The ruler is obeyed because
members of his or her family or class
have always been followed. For example,
 Kingship, Gandhi Family in India,
Koirala Family in Nepal etc.

Legal-rational authority: Legal-rational authority is based on a

system of laws or rules and the right of
those elevated to authority under those
rules to exercise power. The legitimacy
of this type of authority rests on a belief
in reason as a means of ordering social
relationship. The prevailing legal order is
legitimate to the extent that its members
accept it as a reasonable system of
governance. In contrast to charismatic
and traditional authority, legal-rational
authority is much more impersonal.
Obedience is owed primarily to the
impersonal system of governance itself.
Examples, president, prime minister,
constitutional monarch, and various
administrators.

Three Corresponding Types of Administration

Types of governing authority Types of administrative system

a. charismatic a. charismatic
b. traditional b. patriarchal, patrimonial, or feudal
c. legal-rational c. bureaucratic
Weber’s Ideal-Type Bureaucracy
Fixed officials duties: The work of bureaus is systematically
divided so that officials have clearly
defined duties and are delegated authority
to make decisions within their own
sphere of competence.

Hierarchy of authority: Positions are arranged hierarchically

according to their level of authority; each
lower office is under the control and
supervision of a higher one; subordinates
are accountable to their superiors through
a clear chain of command.

Systems of rules: Behavioral rules limit the scope of

authority and constrain the official’s
personal conduct; technical rules define
how work is to be performed and
decisions made.

Technical expertise: Officials are selected and promoted based

on their competence to perform specific,
specialized duties.
Career service: Bureaucracies comprise officials who
have chosen public services as a career,
who receive a salary for their services,
and whose offices are not their personal
property.

Written documentation: Officials maintain written records of all

rules, decisions, and administrative
actions.