This a set of materials I developed for an E-Core on-line class for the University System. This is part of a fully on-line course in American Government. This course (of which I created 3 chapters) was rated one of the top 16 on-line courses in the nation. While I don't intend for students to work through the entire lesson, you will find content and links that will be of use in preparing for test II.
Learning objectives:
1. Ascertain why societies have a need for bureaucracy.
2. Demonstrate knowledge of the structural and procedural characteristics that all bureaucracies have in common.
3. Contrast the negative and positive impacts that bureaucracy has upon society and the individual.
4. Describe the four types of bureaucracies that exist on the national level—the Cabinet, Independent Agencies, Independent Regulatory Agencies, and Governmental Corporations.
5. Identify sources of bureaucratic power that enable them to be strong political actors within our society.
6. Compare and assess methods by which bureaucracies are held accountable.
7. Analyze the rational-actor model of decision making and compare it to how bureaucracies typically make decisions.
Introduction: Warning—the following is not for the faint of heart.
Few of us will ever even see our president in person and few of us will ever get a chance to sit down and talk with our congressman. But all of us will have to deal with federal, state, and local bureaucracies for our entire lifetimes. In addition bureaucratization of society is all around us—both in the public and private sectors. Don’t think that you can easily escape the impacts of living in a very complex bureaucratized society.
The following material presented is not going to lighten your spirits. But hopefully, it will give you a fairly accurate assessment of why the bureaucracy is the way it is and to point out why bureaucracy is the governmental infrastructure that keeps our society chugging on down the road. Bureaucracies provide continuity. They make life predictable.
PICT OF SUNRISE
Resource of this pict:
http://tonynewlin.com/Sunrises_and_Sunsets.htm
Predictability is a good thing. Will the sun rise tomorrow? Will the Federal Reserve Board be there to try to help us avert another Great Depression? Will the Defense Department’s actions provide us with physical security? Well, just like the sun rising—we can safely assume that our permanent government will be there tomorrow to try to deal with such issues. The politicians could go away for months and we would probably not even miss them. Politicians come and go, but it is the bureaucracy that day-in and day-out that does the really important things in life—like getting your grandmother her monthly Social Security check.
SOCIAL SECURITY LOGO
http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10035.html
No one likes bureaucracy. The very word brings forth a negative response from
the average American. To the citizen--who is mistrustful of government in
general--the term symbolizes “red tape” (procedures that seem to stand in the
way of the citizen getting service), inefficiency, and wasteful spending. To
many, bureaucracy seems to be something like a combination of a Rube Goldberg
invention and a perpetual motion machine (minus its efficiency)—something that
makes the simple difficult and something that never diminishes or goes away.
Rather than thinking about the people who work in government agencies or bureaus
as hard working civil servants, most see them as bureaucrats—just cogs in
an impersonal and insensitive machine.
RESOURCE FOUND AT:
http://scrtec.org/track/tracks/f00478.html
RUBE GOLDBERG—ACCOMPLISHING A VERY SIMPLE TASK A “PERPETUAL MOTION
USING AS MANY STEPS AS POSSIBLE MACHINE
But what citizens don’t seem to understand, is that bureaucracy is not born out of a vacuum. The earliest Cabinet level bureaucracies were born out of the necessity of the elected government to deal with such basic issues and national necessities as the conducting of diplomacy/foreign affairs (the State Department), national defense (the War Department—today Defense), and budgetary concerns (Treasury). Bureaucracy is the mechanism through which our political leaders attempt to maintain our most basic national interests. With the three above, you cannot get much more fundamental—namely foreign policy, national survival, and economic wellbeing.
THE STATE DEPARTMENT THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT
IMAGES FOUND—state/treasury
http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/Cabinet/html/cabinet_links.html
PENTAGON FOUND AT
http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Apr1998/DF-ST-87-06962.html
As time went by, other bureaucracies were created—their birth and growth were the result of increasing demands upon the government by citizens and interest groups to “do something!” about an array of other “vital” problems that the government “should be addressing.” Consistently the public is against big government in the abstract, yet demands all types of government service and action. Bureaucracy is the means through which the government attempts to address these demands, with the establishment of bureaus or agencies to address problems and demands on an ongoing basis.
A number of so-called clientele agencies exist (such as the Agriculture Department, Energy, Labor, Commerce, or Education) and do seem to often serve as a vehicle of representation and input for the major interest groups that exist within the American political system. Lowi and Ginsberg state, in American Government, that the Defense Department has become one of these clientele agencies because the defense budget has become a part of the “ pork barrel” by which congressmen satisfy defense related interests in their states. Agencies such as the above provide a point of access for the interests, attempt to deal with the problems of those interests on a long-term basis, and have a large voice in the policy process as to how those interests fare in the allocation of benefits and services.
Initially many of these interests may have actually feared the creation of the agencies (example: oil companies initially feared the regulatory impacts of the Department of Energy), but most have found the agencies to become more of an ally than an adversary in the game of politics.
So when it comes to demands by the citizenry to reduce the bureaucracy, where would one start? Everyone is against bureaucracy in the abstract, but individual bureaucracies become sacred cows to interests groups and by congresspersons who feel compelled to continue “bringing home the bacon.” “Sure—cut that one over there, but don’t touch mine.” Collectively the impact of these actors is that a reduction in the size or scope of functions of our permanent government—the bureaucracy—seldom occurs.
SoloAssignment:
Go to the following web sites:
The Cabinet:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/Cabinet/html/cabinet_links.html
Federal Agencies and Commissions:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/Independent_Agencies/html/independent_links.html
For test purposes, the student will be responsible for knowing the four basic types of bureaucracies that exist on the federal level—the Cabinet, Independent Agencies, Independent Regulatory Agencies, and Governmental Corporations. Every text deals with their description.
Write a one-page (250-word) essay on the following:
Make a list of the current 14 Cabinet Agencies. Which of the 14 would you classify as being clientele agencies? Make sure you identify the interest group associated with each clientele agency? Which, if any, agencies do you think we could do without? If so, why? Are there any lesser agencies that you think should be promoted to the Cabinet level (the most powerful and prestigious of the national bureaucracy)? If so, why? Send your essay to your instructor.
Bureaucracy all around us:
In this lesson, the focus is primarily upon the bureaucracy on the national level. However, it is all around us on all levels of the government—national, state, and local. The national government employs between 2.5 to 2.7 million civil servants. It also employs approximately 1.4 million in the military. This accounts for about 5% of the entire workforce in the United States. But don’t assume that the largest percentage of the bureaucracy is “big brother” on the national level. On the state level and local levels there are approximately 17 million government employees, which constitute 12% of the workforce. The odds are not bad that you, the student, do or possibly will earn your living as an employee of government.
Solo Assignment:
Look in your phone book and make a listing of the federal, state, and local agencies and services that exist in your area. Categorize them as to whether they fall under the realm of economic, social-welfare, or defense related issues. Post your list to the Discussion Forum.
Bureaucracy in the private sector too:
Yes, there are a lot of public employees who indeed could be classified as working within a bureaucratic environment. Bureaucratic features exist also in the private sector. You may think you can get away from bureaucracy by working in the private sector, but you probably cannot. If you are a private sector employee or intend to be one, does (or will) your place of employment have the following features?
Characteristics that all bureaucracies have in common:
PYRAMIDAL ORGANIZATION
1. A mission statement—states its purpose.
2. A hierarchical (pyramid) organizational structure—with pay and prestige increasing as you approach the top.
3. Standard operating procedures—which guide routine decision-making.
4. Formal rules and regulations that you must comply with.
5. Formal channels of communication.
6. A breakdown of jobs on the basis of specialization and a division of labor based on areas of expertise.
7. Superior/subordinate relationships through which accountability is maintained.
8. An emphasis upon formal record keeping (a paper trail of how decisions were made).
If you answered yes to most of the above, your private work place has the features common to bureaucracy. This is not offered so as to depress the student, but it is a fact of life that American society has a very bureaucratic quality to it.
NEED A PICTURE OF ANTS—IN A ROW NEED PICTS OF BEE HIVE
HOW ABOUT SOME MUSIC LIKE “FLIGHT OF THE BUMBLE-BEE”
Anthills or bee hives:
Think of a helicopter view of Atlanta at rush hour. There is an almost insect society quality to what you will see. Like worker bees or ants we make our way to our specific jobs. Unlike insects we create traffic jams trying to get there. Our work place is often an office or a cubical in buildings that often look alike. Our jobs are often quite routine—working within our area of specialization—trying to comply with the dictates of our work place. After our labor, we try to head home—again through traffic jams—to that house or apartment in suburbs that all look just the same. The next day, we get up and do it again.
Did you know that the Georgia Department of Transportation has Traffic Cams? Is this a necessary service? How much does this cost?
http://www.accessatlanta.com/news/traffic/75cam_signs.html
MANY LIVE IN THE DILBERT WORLD
The popular cartoon strip Dilbert speaks to many workers in both the public and private sector. Many people work in a world of dehumanizing cubicles, must follow SOPs (standard operating procedures), and must deal with (incompetent??) managers and bosses. As to the private sector, there are only two types of businesses—those that know that the world of Dilbert is real—and those that that live in the world of Dilbert and just don’t know it.
OFFICE CUBICAL
FOUND AT:
http://www.bi-ca.com/open_office.htm
Check out Scott Adam’s Dilbert Zone:
Another negative metaphor about life in a bureaucratic America is that of the
individual as a cog in the great big wheel of life. You know you live in a
highly bureaucratized society if you feel like you are a replaceable cog. For
instance, today to get a job you have to have an area of training or
specialization. One must think very carefully today in pursuing an education—to
qualify for those jobs that might have your name on it. But of course once you
find your nitch, you may well find that your dream job is just one of routine.
Then one day, if you don’t understand already, you will discover that indeed you
are replaceable. Upon your retirement, another cog (person) is ready to step
in—and the agency or corporation will not even skip a beat in the pursuits of
its mission or goals. You will be lucky to get a gold watch—battery operated
from the nearest________Mart.
GEARS/COGS PICTURE NEEDED
Kurt Vonnegut, in his novel Piano Player (written in the 1950s about the future) speaks to the above. In Vonnegut’s vision of the future, Americans have an almost “industrial/bureaucratic” mindset to problem solving. In Piano Player, time was delineated not as we do today with B.C. (before Christ) and A.D (After Death), but rather B.F. and A.F. Who could be so important as to be honored so highly? The answer—Henry Ford. What impact did he have upon our society? He revolutionized industrial production through the introduction (on a large scale) of the assembly line. One can almost see the light bulb go off in his mind.
Reading the mind of Ford:
“First break a complex job down into its component parts. You can then hire less skilled workers (it does not take a Michaelanglo to put lug-nuts on a wheel all day long), who in their narrow areas of specialization—can produce a quality product, with greater efficiency, and at a modest cost.” For Ford, and American industry in general, this was indeed true.
YOU CAN PAINT IT ANY COLOR, PICTURE OF AN AGENCY: WE WILL GIVE
SO LONG AS IT’S BLACK—H.FORD YOU A SOLUTION, SO LONG AS IT FITS
OUR SOPS.
In the political arena, if seems as if our society and its political leaders have in ways copied the industrial model of production employed by Ford and has tried to apply it to governmental policy making. Over time our governmental leaders have developed and utilized institutional assembly lines (bureaucracy) to attempt to create a structure and a process for efficient/cost effective implementation of their policies and programs. In theory this all makes sense. The above highlighted features of bureaucracy (such as hierarchy, specialization, and application of formal rules) can indeed help produce a system that is fairly accountable and efficient.
One can not assume, however, that implementing public policy is like running a business. One must remember that for a business the bottom “hard-line” is that business’ profit. It is fairly easy to judge a good business. The prime question asked is--does it make a profit? It is not fair to judge how well our government functions as one would a business.
First, nothing the government does is geared towards profit production—most of us would just be happy for the government to not run “in the red.” Secondly, everything the government is involved with defies simplistic evaluations as to its efficiency. How can we ever know if the defense dollars we spend give us “a lean/mean fighting machine” that will provide security under all circumstances. What programs and how much money would it take for the government to eradicate poverty in the United States? How do we know if our educational policies/funding will truly meet America’s needs for the future? In general everything the government does (or is involved with) has few “indicators of profitability.” Most of the problems faced by our government are ongoing (whether economic, social-welfare, or defense/foreign policy) and not subject to simple solutions. But they are problems that government must address year in and year out.
Thus the birth and growth of bureaucracy in the public and private sectors can be understood. But, let us return to the individual citizen. In many regards we are our Social Security numbers. Often we are treated as if individually one is just a number to be “processed or serviced.” We are not treated as true individuals by the government, insurance corporations, the building inspector, or probably even your college where you are enrolled. Surely, you are depressed by now?
Well, how did we let it get this way? We, as a nation, have grown tremendously in population. Our society and its inter-workings have continued to become evermore complex. In the public realm more and more demands were made upon the government. To keep the complex system of the United States functional, bureaucracy (in all walks of life) was seen as more necessary. Again to remind the student, the features of bureaucracies listed above can produce fairly efficient and accountable decisions for the whole of society. Bureaucratic societies can through the permanent government’s continuity, areas of specialization and expertise, and emphasis upon procedurally rational decision-making process (with a paper trail to prove it) attempt to deal with problems and issues in our extremely complex society.
And guess what? All great civilizations in past history (even ancient Greece and Egypt) have had large, healthy, strapping bureaucracies that helped them maintain their greatness. In fact, it can be argued that civilizations can actually raise the standard of living for its citizens and quality of life for society as a whole through the utilization of bureaucracy. Because of government and its bureaucracies, all of our students have access to public education. We take care of our weakest (the poor, the aged, and the handicapped). Societal health problems can be systematically addressed (the end of smallpox, research for cures to cancer and AIDs). The maintenance of a military “second to none” can be achieved. The worst economic swings like the Great Depression can (hopefully) be avoided. One of the greatest services bureaucracy provides to any society is continuity.
ETERNITY SYMBOL
IMAGE FOUND:
http://www.courtave.net/~cronk/portfoli/printmat/printed3.html
Most citizens want, but don’t give credit to, the positive role that the permanent government plays in making life predictable and stable. While politicians do their song and dance on the front of the political stage—it is the big greasy machine (the bureaucracy) behind the stage curtain that keeps our society rolling. Politicians come and go, but in positive fashion it is the bureaucracy that keeps the wheels of our society rolling on into the future.
I TRIED TO FIND A PICT OF BILL CLINTON PLAYIN THE SAX WITH NO LUCK, BUT A VISUAL OF A STAGE WITH POLITICIANS (BILL LEADING WITH A SAX SOLO, THE SUPREME COURT DOING “DO-WAP DIDDIES, AND CONGRESS DOING A ROCKETTS LINE KICK ON THE FRONT OF THE STAGE—AND A BIG GREASY BUREAUCRACY BEHIND THE CURTAIN AT THE BACK OF THE STAGE WOULD GET ACROSS THE MESSAGE—IF YOU CAN DO THIS ONE I WILL BE AMAZED.
The price extracted:
So we all ought to be happy? Well, there is a price to be paid for the stability and security provided by the permanent government. The price is the impact upon the autonomy of the individual. Autonomy has to do with the control one has over one’s own destiny. Is the locus of power within the individual? Perhaps your great, great grandfather or grandmother felt more autonomous than you do today. Perhaps they did hold their destiny in their own two hands. However, they did not have Social Security to be able to count on, and no Medicare/Medicaid health insurance, and probably died by the time they were forty. If indeed the existence of the permanent government can make life better for the whole of the society, the price extracted is the price upon the individual’s sense of personal worth and autonomy. How does one find the delicate balance between having a society that has an adequate degree of bureaucracy to benefit society—yet not dehumanize the individual?
Logical degree of bureaucratization to Individual autonomy
facilitate the needs of society
The answer to the above question may be impossible to determine. But citizens need to wake up and understand that if we drastically cut the size of our permanent government—our quality of life in America (as a whole) could indeed decline. We are simply too complex of a society to step back to a frontier mentality of rugged individualism.
All types of negative assessments about bureaucracy can be made beyond the negative impacts upon individual autonomy. Let us look at some other negatives, but to be fair let us look at why bureaucracies are the way they are.
Waste and inefficiency:
In the news there is a tendency to focus upon the government as the product of politicians’ actions. The only time the bureaucracy tends to be in the news is when some grievous blunder, or waste, or inefficiency surfaces. Then citizens tend to respond by beating their chests and saying, “There they go again—wasting my tax dollars.” In studies that compare the public to the private sector, the following has been found to be true.
The competency and dedication of civil servants is just as good as those who
work for the private sector. You have approximately the same percentages of
workers who are extremely competent, moderately competent, and poor workers in
both sectors. The waste, inefficiency, and rip-offs are comparable. The
difference is that the individual does not beat their chest against the private
sector, unless they were the victims of the shoddy goods or services offered by
the private sector.
BUYER BEWARE
A classic example would be Ford Motor Company’s purposeful continued production of the Pinto. That was the car produced by Ford that tended to explode upon being rear-ended. Ford knew that there would be X numbers of death per rear-end collision, but the company had made a “cost-effective” decision that it would cost them too much to move the gas tank to a safer location. General Motors is also accused of creating a “death trap” vehicle with their defective gas tanks on trucks (tanks outside of the frame—tend to explode on side impacts of trucks produced between 1978-1986). With the private sector the attitude is buyer beware—when the government screws up we all scream—they are wasting my tax dollars. Also, as stated previously, it really isn’t fair to assess the government the same way you do a business—the problems faced by government are typically much larger and more difficult to deal with than is say the making of a safe vehicle.
Discussion Board Activity:
What do you think about the current trend of government utilizing “privatization” (contracting out) to perform functions that the government used to perform? One current example in Georgia is the experiment to have private companies (for profit) building and running prisons. What other government functions can you think of that are being privatized? What are the potential negative impacts of this trend or experimentation? Post to the Discussion Board.
Sometime in the 1300s in Britain when kings would issue some “royal decree” or policy decision, the document would be rolled and tied with red tape. To get at the policies would entail having to untie the red tape as they passed from person to person—thus the origin of this concept.
Check out the song “Red Tape Come Again No More”
http://members.tripod.com/~AmusedMuse/redtape.html
We all know about “red tape.” As an example—here is a short tale of one person who understands how to deal with the bureaucratic process. The particular bureaucracy does not matter. This could be Social Security, the Driver’s License Bureau, or the Unemployment Office. The wise citizen arrives ten minutes before the office opens—to avoid the lines. When the door opens, immediately take your number from the ticket machine—you will not be served unless you have a number. Make sure that you have all identification and documentation—and I do mean all—or the civil servant will not be able to proceed. Do not take it personally, when they do treat you like a number. They have to. To maintain a system that provides equal service to those who qualify for that service—demands a system based on clear criteria to receive service and no preferential treatment. In the social-welfare realm, the caseworker will have to treat you as a number to maintain their professionalism and to avoid their own worker burnout (the result of caseworkers trying to shoulder the individual problems of the people they serve). To ensure all of this, bureaucracies must use and the citizen must comply with all the paperwork (a paper trail) that insures accountability.
Discussion Board Activity: A time to vent
On the discussion board, give a personal example of bureaucratic red tape that you have experienced.
Sometimes it may seem as if the civil servant enjoys giving the citizen the bureaucratic run-around and immersing the citizen in red tape—but that really isn’t the case. They are forced to comply with the rules established by the legislature to ensure accountability. Perhaps it would be more logical for the citizen to blame the legislature for all the red tape. It is the legislature that demands the creation and use of a paper trail to try to keep tabs on the bureaucracy. Since bureaucracies and what they do is so difficult to assess as to their efficiency and effectiveness—the legislature demands a paper trail to facilitate its oversight of the executive branch’s implementation of “the law.” It is sort of like saying, “if you cannot specifically prove that you are succeeding in your mission, then show me the paper trail to prove to me that you attempted to use a rational decision-process based on the proper formal rules and procedures that are in place to guide your efforts.” Formal record keeping again is aimed at insuring accountability
Let us look at one last negative. It is often said that bureaucracies are most effective in the early years of their creation. But as they age, it often seems that they become more conservative and that the bureaucracy begins to take on a life of its own. Instead of performing its proper functions in an assertive fashion, the bureaucracy becomes more interested in its survival goals.
Over time, the survival and wellbeing of the bureaucracy seem to become more important than the functions it is supposed to be performing. Interests such as a growth in personnel within the bureau, job security/employee benefits, maintaining good morale, and securing ever-larger budgets seem to sometimes dominate the attention of the agency. “Turf battles” between agencies sometimes seem more important than getting the job done. Bureaucracies seem to seek power and therefore engage in politics to try to achieve their desires. Bureaucracies are not exempt from politics just because in theory the legislature “makes public policy” and the executive (the president) “insures the laws implementation.”
Bureaucracies are not simply robot-like entities that follow the orders of our elected officials. They have institutional interests. They have the collective interests of the individuals who work in the bureaucracy. They have interests maintaining the autonomy of the bureaucracy. Bureaucracies have political interests and will fight to maintain those interests. Individuals who work within could also have their own agendas and interests that shape how they do their job. Many scholars have concluded that the power of the bureaucracy to get what they want--is so great that the bureaucracy has become a fourth branch of government. Questions of accountability will be dealt with later.
A THOUSAND POINTS OF LIGHT--BUSH
NASA: PICT OF STARS
http://observe.ivv.nasa.gov/nasa/gallery/image_gallery/universe/graphics/white_dwarf2.jpg
In the 1980s President George Bush tried to at least symbolically move away from government reliance upon bureaucracy. He advocated that we as citizens should become “a thousand points of light.” Involved citizens through volunteerism could make America a much better place and reduce the need for bureaucracy.
The problem is volunteerism just will not work. Hollansburg, Ohio (a tiny village in southwest Ohio) has the oldest volunteer fire department in the nation. The village is quite proud of this fact. Another fact is that the house or barn on fire usually burns down because it takes so long for the volunteers to assemble.
Volunteerism can help in the realm of social-welfare problems—but bell ringers at Christmas time cannot address the ongoing problems of the poor. Neither can we return to a “Minuteman” system of national defense. What might have worked in the era of the War for National Independence (calling in farmers from the field, giving them a couple weeks of training, and then sending them off to battle) will not work in the age of the “technotronic” battlefield. Today we need a highly trained and professional military. In the economic realm the majority of Americans believe that we need to have full time professionals to regulate and guide our nation’s economic well-being. Sorry George, but volunteerism does not meet the needs of the highly complex society that we live in. Bureaucracy exists as a response to the needs of our society in social-welfare, defense, and economics. Whether we like bureaucracy is almost irrelevant—our complex society needs it. We can try to increase congressional oversight, or give the president more latitude to reorganize/streamline/ or reduce its total numbers of governmental employees—but we cannot do without them altogether. Bureaucracies perform vital functions in our society.
Routine Problem Solving:
Every month the Social Security System mails out millions of checks to retirees. It does this month after month and year after year—with few screw-ups. If an agency deals with routine issues for which they can develop standard operating procedures to deal with those issues, the agency can do a pretty good job of administering governmental programs and policies. Of course if the agency has to deal with unique problems that do not fall easily within its framework of SOPs, then bureaucracies tend to muddle their way forward. But, citizens should recognize the strength of bureaucracies to systematically deal with problems under their jurisdiction year in and year out.
Think about firefighters—the professionals not the volunteers. They are skilled professionals. Their response to the fire is timely, using proven SOPs to fight the fire, and with a far higher success rate than the good-hearted volunteers.
Solo Assignment:
Be sure to call ahead and set up an appointment. Meet with someone who works with the city or county government in some capacity. The police department, the school board, the sanitation department, the county jail, or any other similar agency of local government would be fine. Ask them about the bureaucratic features of their department or agency--characteristics listed toward the beginning of this lesson (hierarchy, formal rules, superior subordinate relationships, and SOPs….).
Write a two-page (500) word essay on your findings. Does this agency do a good job? If you say yes, what measure of “proof” backs up your assessment? How good of a job does this agency do with issues that are not routine—that are unique? Send your essay to your instructor.
The Evolution of the National Bureaucracy:
Every standard text on American government deals with the changes to America’s bureaucracy over time. In the early years of our Republic, the bureaucracy was small—the functions of the government were not nearly as broad as they are today. Issues such as social-welfare were not even on the radarscopes of the government prior to the 20th century. During this early era, the cadre of workers in the national government were aristocratic in their origin (often men of means) who tended to stay on in Washington regardless of the particular administration in power. It should be noted that there were some patronage appointments as early as the Jefferson Administration (a marginal spoils system). But in the early years, for the most part, the small aristocratic group of skilled (professional) administrators were capable of performing necessary functions of the government.
JACKSON AND THE SPOILS SYSTEM
The next stage was the full-scale implementation of a spoils system (to the victor goes the spoils) by President Jackson. Jackson argued that the jobs the government should be doing were so “plain and simple,” that offices should rotate among deserving applicants. With the spoils system, patrons (political supporters) of high elected officials were often rewarded with jobs within the government. With each election the spoils system produced major turnovers in personnel in all levels of the bureaucracy. The spoils system was based on “who you know, not what you know.” While perhaps strong in terms of loyalty, the spoils system is easy to criticize in that sometimes the government ended up with incompetent individuals in administrative positions of importance.
Soon demands began for a change. The new emphasis was upon the need to hire professionals, who in a neutral fashion, efficiently provide good service regardless of who was president or in congress.
Demands increased for hiring based on merit—with “what you know being more important than who you know.” This merit system would properly insulate our permanent government professionals from arbitrary dismissal. The result of these demands was the Pendleton Act of 1883, which created the merit system, which we still have today. Most government employees have to take a merit exam before getting a job.
As a historical footnote, when the United States was contemplating this transition, Germany was a central model/example of a society with a very successful bureaucracy. The essence of America’s model of the merit system is built upon the German (Prussian) emphasis upon efficiency, accountability, and professionalism. Of course the student should also remember that Germany was certainly not a democracy at this time—the Kaiser and his Prime Minister ran Germany. We are a democracy, but yet utilize a system of administration that exhibits no attributes of democracy. Bureaucracy, by its very nature is anti-democratic—bureaucracies in theory are just to follow the directives of the nation’s political leaders (who in the United States are elected) and to do it efficiently and in an accountable fashion.
Check out:
Of course with the shift to the merit system, you trade one set of problems for another. The merit system’s professionalism and continuity have had a positive impact upon its implementation of policy. However, the merit system does such a good job in insulating employees that loyalty to our leader’s positions is never a given. There is an expression, “presidents come and go, the bureaucracy goes on forever.” For instance, every new United States president enters office knowing that 80%+ of the people working under him/her (the approximate % of merit system workers) owe him no loyalty and that many of them will disagree with his/her policy priorities.
As time passed more bureaucracies were born. With the end of WWI (with the fear of the next big world war on our minds), there was a dramatic increase in the power of the central government’s regulation of the economy (so as to be ready for the next war). With this era came an increase in the size and number of agencies that dealt with various aspects of economics.
The Great Depression gave birth to the creation of our social welfare system. The population demanded the establishment of what President Reagan would later call our “social safety net.” The Social Security system was established and the government began to attempt dealing with unemployment.
With the end of WWII, there was a tremendous explosion in the central government’s perceived need to maintain a large peacetime military establishment. This was the era of the birth of the CIA, the National Security Council, the Joint Chiefs, and the large budgets of today’s Pentagon.
This gravitation of power towards the central government produced an ever-larger national budget and the bureaucracies to spend that budget. During the Kennedy and Johnson years, our bureaucracy topped out at a size of about 3 million federal employees. This was the beginning of the era of “big government.” The size of the federal bureaucracy has hovered around this 3 million until recently. Regardless of administration—Democrat or Republican—the size was maintained. Neither Nixon nor Reagan (in theory both conservatives) seriously tried to reduce it. It has only been in the Clinton era that the size of the federal government has undergone a modest reduction.
The fourth branch of government—take two:
Max Weber is the person who gets credit for identifying the structural and procedural characteristics most likely to produce professional, accountable, and efficient action by bureaucracies. His articulate summation of the characteristics (listed towards the beginning of this lesson) of bureaucracy create the image of a bureaucracy as a robot-like entity. Weber’s depiction of bureaucracy’s structural and procedural features still accurately describe many features of modern day bureaucracy, but seemingly Weber missed the boat on bureaucracy’s actual involvement in politics.
ROBOTS JUST FOLLOW ORDERS
Robots don’t have wants. They simply follow orders. This is not the way bureaucracies actually perform. As stated above bureaucracies have interests, that go far beyond the simple implementation of our elected leader’s policies. Bureaucracies have wants.
There is a certain mechanistic quality to Weber’s definition of bureaucracy. Orders go in the top and action comes out the bottom. But the student needs to be warned that while bureaucracies may appear to be like a mechanistic robot—in reality bureaucracies are living social/organic entities run by humans who individually and collectively do have political interests.
I WANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Perhaps the robot metaphor has its limits in describing the true nature of bureaucracy. Perhaps a better metaphor would be to think of bureaucracy as the Incredible Hulk (Marvel Comics anti-hero)—a living and breathing creature with wants and desires. As to exactly what the Hulk wanted—it is unclear. The Hulk was a rather dimwitted brute—inarticulate as to his desires—but immensely powerful—a strong adversary of anyone who got in his way.
If one can accept this depiction of bureaucracies as living social creatures, certain “wants and desires” can be identified. At the top of the list is autonomy. Yes, the thing that we as individuals have suffered a loss of in a bureaucratic society--is what each bureaucracy wishes to maintain. Stated specifically, bureaucracies wish to define what their missions are and how they will implement those missions.
IMAGE FOUND:
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/missiles/calcm/alcm.htm
A classic example of this is the Air Force’s resistance of President Carter’s decision to develop and deploy cruise missiles. Carter was faced with an aging B-52 fleet as one leg of our nuclear triad. One solution was to buy a fleet of 100 B-1 bombers at a cost of approximately $100 billion. The other was to deploy over 8 thousand cruise missiles at a cost of only $8 billion. Carter chose the cruise missile as the way to go. But when he offered this extremely sophisticated weapon (Barry Goldwater once said it was so accurate, “we could drop one in the men’s room at the Kremlin), the Air Force tried to reject it. Now this is most unusual—to turn down a super weapon (the cruise missile was called “the flexible flyer”—with ground launched, sea launched, and air launched versions). The question is why would the Air Force balk? The answer is simple—it went against the Air Force’s mission of manned flight penetration of enemy airspace.
One could take a passenger 747 jet—take out the seats and put in 30 missile racks—and turn the Air Force into a bunch of glorified bus drivers—just roll up towards your enemy’s air space and let the smart cruise missiles find their own way to the targets. The Air Force attempted to reject the cruise missile as a part of its “service mission,” but eventually gave in by saying that they would perform it as a “national mission”—but one they did not like.
Bureaucracies are willing to tolerate budget cuts before they tolerate reductions in their autonomy. This situation is often not the case—being forced to choose between autonomy versus budgets. Most bureaucracies can protect their autonomy and pursue bigger budgets—which ranks second on their list of priorities. Bigger budgets typically can translate into bureaucracies expanding its scope of authority and thus also increase their power. Briefly, it can be argued that the current budgetary process is an incremental process, with budgets typically creeping upwards. At worst, budgets are decreased incrementally. Of course the wise bureaucracy will ask for much more than it needs, so that legislature can go through the motions of making cuts—but the end product is that often bureaucracies get more money than they do actually need. Bureaucracies also make sure that they spend all of their current budgets, so that the legislature cannot say that the bureaucracy doe not need more money. Sometimes you end up with some pretty unusual last minute bureaucratic purchases—such as the example of the Navy’s purchase of 100,000 ($5 each) softballs. We all know of the Navy’s great need for softballs on the high seas.
Thirdly, you have those institutional and individual interests described earlier under the heading of survival goals. Indeed bureaucracies are like living creatures with wants.
With autonomy, a desire for bigger budgets, and their other institutional/survival goals as the motivation for engaging in politics-- exactly how do agencies and bureaus win in the political battlefield? It would be impossible to rank order their power resources, but the following factors give bureaucracies real power to influence the policy making process.
First, the Constitution is strangely quite on the entire topic of bureaucracy. There is only a vague passing reference to the president’s use of executive departments to help him see to the implementation of laws passed by congress. The specific agencies and bureaus we have today are all the product of acts of congress (usually at the behest of presidents). The constitution’s vagueness on the regulation and control of bureaucracy splits control of the bureaucracy between the presidency (with its day-to-day administrative control) and the legislature (with its policy making and budgetary responsibilities). The result reflects a constitutional fragmentation of power over exactly who does control the bureaucracy. Just like a family with a mother and father, the child (the bureaucracy) can often play one parent off the other so as to get what the child wants. Singular control over the bureaucracy does not exist and this is to the advantage of the bureaucracy.
Secondly, the bureaucracy performs practical functions that overlap with the explicit functions of our three branches of government. The permanent government performs legislative, executive, and judicial functions. Congress has legislative and budgetary responsibilities, but is seemingly incapable of creating their own legislative or budgetary agenda. Seventy-to-eighty percent of the ideas that become law and determine our national governmental budget each year come from the president and his/her administration. Presidents certainly do not determine these proposals on their own. Often it is the bureaucracies that make the legislative and budgetary proposals that the president sends to congress each year. Therefore, bureaucracies often perform distinctly legislative functions.
Bureaucracies do indeed constitute a president’s administration. Upon the passage of the policies and budget by congress, it is the bureaucracies that perform the executive branch’s constitutional charge of seeing to the implementation of these policies. Often the laws passed by congress are vague. This leaves the bureaucracies with great latitude to interpret and implement the policies as they see fit.
The bureaucracy also performs certain judicial functions. With increasing frequency the courts beg off of technically complicated cases—claiming “judicial in-expertise.” Courts will often relegate a court case to an agency or bureau that deals with related issue areas and allows the agency or bureau to make a legally binding decision. For example, it is often the Environmental Protection Agency that determines that a particular industry is exceeding pollution regulations and stipulates the fines imposed upon that industry.
Again, it the big greasy bureaucracy behind the curtain at the back of the stage that actually does the work of the politicians who stand on the front of the stage of American politics.
Thirdly, the bureaucracy enjoys the position having a monopoly on information needed by the politicians to make policy decisions and a monopoly in services provided by the permanent government. Because of the compartmentalization of issues among the agencies, the politicians find themselves reliant upon the experts in each of the separate agencies for information and then dependent upon those same agencies to see that the policies are carried out.
As an example, every year come budget time, the Defense Department will wheel shopping carts filled with their budget justifications into the House and Senate. Often the budget projections, when stacked up, are over ten feet tall. Congress has neither the capability nor typically the will to thoroughly go through this voluminous information. Typically Congress will ask the Pentagon officials to “cut to the chase” and the officials will smile. The officials speaking for the bureaucracy will then direct the course of the budget debate. Upon passage of the budget, compartmentalization of functions within the government results in the implementation of programs and policies by the very agency that conceived the program or policy.
Check out Defense 2001 Budget Request:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2000/b02072000_bt045-00.html
Fourthly, in all of the above the bureaucracy will profess that their positions, programs, and budget requests are NOT the product of politics—but rather the product of a neutral and professional assessments by the agency involved.
A fifth source of power comes from outside the bureaucracy. In your lesson on Interest Groups, you will have been directed towards the concept of “iron triangles.” Triangular cooperative relationships between an interest group, key members of congress who sit on the committees that allocate resources, and the bureaucracy that deals with that issue will develop.
AN EXAMPLE OF TRIANGULAR RELATIONSHIPS
BY THOMAS PATTERSON
In a classic study by Lewis Manzier, strong logic was presented that the strength of the bureaucracy is directly correlated with the strength of the interest group it is associated with. Manzier concluded that in the past the Defense Department consistently won its budget and program battles, because of the strength of the defense industries in our society. The interest groups, according to Manzier, were treated as if they were constituents with undeniable rights. In the economic realm, Manzier, identified the interest groups as being like clients with a privileged relationship (like a lawyer and his client). These interests typically win. This leaves the realm of social-welfare bureaucracies. Manzier believes that these interests are typically the weakest interest groups (the poor, the unemployed, college students who need financial assistance….) and therefore the weakest bureaucracies. While some of you may disagree with Manzier’s conclusions—he argues that often the interests associated with our social-welfare agencies are so weak that often they are treated in a paternalistic fashion (we know what is best for you) or become victims of the system that deals with their problems.
In conclusion, it is hopefully apparent that bureaucracies are not simply robot-like implementers of our elected officials’ policies and preferences. Indeed they have resources that enable them to act as a strong fourth branch of government (albeit under the supposed direction of the presidency). Often it is this non-elected element of our government that has a huge voice in the policy process.
Given the above, exactly what types of efforts are made to insure the accountability of this non-democratic entity within our democratic society? Every text on American government deals with this issue. Using your text as a primary source, address the following assignment.
Solo Assignment:
In a one page (250 word) essay address one of the following:
1. Congress theoretically controls the budget process and has the power of legislative oversight over the executive branch. How successful is congress in its efforts to maintain an accountable bureaucracy?
2. What methods do presidents attempt to employ in their efforts to control the bureaucracy? How successful are they?
3. Accountability through the courts (not necessarily covered in all texts) is another source of influences upon the bureaucracy. What methods of influence could courts impose upon the courts to make them accountable?
4. A last source of accountability is seen as coming from within the bureaucracy itself. While one may wonder about the likelihood of reform from within—it is often seen as perhaps one of the most successful forms of reform and increased accountability. What types of action take place within bureaucracy to reform itself and maintain accountability?
In the field of political science, one sub-field of study focuses upon the decision-making process of political institutions. In the literature on this topic, there is often an emphasis upon how the process follows or deviates from the normative ideal of a set of criteria and steps (that if followed exactly) would produce truly rational decisions—both big or small. Wouldn’t be great if all decisions (including our own individual life decisions) were the product of a purely rational process. The steps in making a rational decision are the following:
The Rational-Actor Model
1. Correctly identify the problem.
2. Correctly relate this problem to your goals and values (which you need to have ranked as to your priorities).
3. Study ALL possible alternative (courses of action) potential solutions to the problem.
4. Make a cost-efficient decision (expression often used is “get the most bang for the buck”). This step must be based on a clear finding of the means by which to achieve your ends (sometimes in real life people get their ends-means mixed around).
5. Implement your decision.
6. Feedback—if all of the above have been successfully accomplished, you no longer have a problem.
Guess what? Seldom do we as individuals make truly rational decisions. Even in making very important large decisions (like what profession to pursue or who to marry), most individuals at some point abandon the logical process above and make their decisions on a “leap of faith.” It should be obvious to the student that each step in the above process may be extremely difficult to achieve.
Using your life as example, without getting too personal, write a brief HUMOROUS essay (less than one page) on a decision you have made about some problem in your life. The type of problems you might relate to the rational-actor model listed above would include (but are not restricted to) problems such as buying a car, buying a house, choosing a profession, getting married/divorced, deciding to switch jobs, or whether to have children or not. Make sure you cover all the steps (and how things can go wrong with each step) as your decision-making proceeds. Post this to the Discussion Board.
Most individuals seldom make truly rational decisions. I think I made some pretty good decisions this morning on the problems of what to wear and what to have for breakfast—other than that—I don’t know. If individuals have difficulty in making rational decisions, pity the poor bureaucracies whose collective population exceeds 20 million. The formal rules and processes established by bureaucracies are directed toward the effort to ensure a rational decision process (in addition to issues of accountability). But in their efforts to achieve rational policies and decisions, they like individuals fail to achieve the ideal.
In a classic work on this question (Lindbloom and Braybrooke), bureaucracies were identified as having to deal with two sets of issues in their efforts to make rational decisions. Do the decision-makers have access to high quality information—or is the information available of a low quality? Secondly, are the decision-makers making a high risk or a low risk decision?
This can be visualized as creating four decision contexts.
High Risk Situations Low Risk Situation
High
Quality u
Info
Low
Quality
Info
Utopian solutions (high quality information/high risk) probably exist in the minds of people—but don’t even exist in the real world. Situations of low quality information/high risk (such as deciding to go to war) ultimately cannot be called a rational decision. It is only in the category of high information/low risk that rational decisions can be made (should the bureau order more paper). In situations where imperfect low quality information/low risk describes the decision context, bureaucracies most commonly pursue an incremental approach to making decisions (example: take last year’s program and try to fine-tune it). In common everyday language, what this means is that bureaucracies can make fairly rational decisions on small problems. But just like you and me, in dealing with problems we quite can not figure out—we both pursue the “scientific process of muddling through.”
Quiz Questions:
Multiple Choice:
1. All Cabinet Secretaries are:
2. Which of the following characteristics is NOT true about bureaucracy?
A. Formal rules of operation.
B. Adherence to democratic processes within the operation of the bureaucracy.
C. Specialization.
D. Hierarchical organization.
E. The creation of standard operating procedures.
3. Which conclusion with respect to bureaucracy is NOT correct?
A. Bureaucracy has grown more important in modern times because complex problems demand attention and efficiency from government.
B. Most public employees are dedicated and competent.
C. The bureaucracy is immune from politics—it seeks only to impartially administer the laws made elsewhere.
D. Much of what bureaucracy does is taken for granted and does not involve controversy.
4. The FBI, the CIA, and the Environmental Protection Agency are:
A. All agencies within cabinet departments.
B. All independent agencies.
C. Respectively, a regulatory agency, a cabinet level agency, and an agency within a cabinet department.
D. Respectively, an agency within a cabinet department, an independent agency, and a regulatory agency.
E. Respectively, an independent agency, an agency within a cabinet department, and a cabinet level agency.
5. Compared to the president and Congress, the bureaucracy:
A. Is held in higher esteem by the public.
B. Is authorized by a constitutional amendment (the 28th).
C. Has a more immediate impact upon the daily lives of Americans.
D. Has changed very little during the nation’s history.
6. Bureaucrats tend to follow:
A. The wishes of the president.
B. The wishes of Congress.
C. Their own agency’s point of view.
D. The expectations of the general public.
7. Legally, the bureaucracy derives the general authority for its programs from:
A. Presidential executive orders.
B. Acts of Congress.
C. Article X of the Constitution.
D. Supreme Court rulings.
8. Congress in general:
A. Tries to monitor the bureaucracies very closely.
B. Allows the bureaucracy to define broad policy goals.
C. Trusts the president to manage the bureaucracy.
D. Sets broad policy and then allows the bureaucracy discretion in implementing it.
9. The newest Cabinet department, created during the Reagan era, is:
A. The Department of Education.
B. Veterans Affairs.
C. The Department of Energy.
D. The Department of the Environment.
10. The Cabinet department with the most employees is:
A. The Treasury Department.
B. Health and Human Services.
C. The Defense Department.
D. The State Department.
Match the following four types of bureaucracy with their correct definition:
11. Cabinet Departments
12. Independent Agencies
13. Regulatory Agencies
14. Governmental Corporations
A. The major administrative organizations—responsible for broad policy issues.
B. Administrative units responsible for monitoring/supervising/controlling ongoing economic activities.
C. Agencies that charge for their services.
D. Have a narrow area of responsibility.
E. Have directors who are elected every four years.
Answers:
11. A
12. D
13.B
14.C
Short Answer--In one paragraph or less address the following:
1. What is the federal bureaucracy’s main function?
2. Define the term clientele agencies.
3. Contrast the patronage (spoils sytstem) with the merit system.
1. Identify at least four features (structural and procedural) that all bureaucracies have in common.
2. What power resources do bureaucracies have to help them achieve their political desires? Identify four different sources of strength.
3. Highlight 3 problems with bureaucracy in modern day society. Then discuss 3 positive functions that bureaucracies perform for society.
