Even though "bureaucracy" is critical to the implementation of the wishes of elected officials who propose and pass legislation, governmental bureaucracy often takes a beating from politicians and the public at large. Ironically, though, historians and social scientists often point to bureaucracy as the hallmark of the development of modern political systems, which are thought to be based on efficiency and rationality. As a result of this contradiction, the bureaucracies and bureaucrats that we rely on to implement public policy occupy a thoroughly ambiguous position in modern political culture. They are essential components of the public policy system, but are seemingly fated to suffer the slings and arrows of critics from all camps when they disappoint people's exacting expectations, or when they otherwise implement policies that you or I might not like.
One of the earliest writers on bureaucracy and governmental administration was the German sociologist Max Weber (1864-1920), whose writings on bureaucracy contributed to the common ideal of the unbiased, efficient, "rational-legal" bureaucracy. Weber observed that all authority could be classified as one of three types: traditional authority, in which tasks and duties were not well-defined and were not based on merit/competence; charismatic authority based on devotion to a particular individual; and rational-legal authority, based on well-defined, impersonal rules and the assigning of jobs based on technical competence.
Despite having some negative consequences, the rational-legal type of authority is generally thought to be preferable to traditional or charismatic authority, and to provide the model for bureaucratic behavior in a modern political system. Weber saw that modern "rational-legal" officialdom ideally functioned according to six principles.
fixed division of labor, with specialization of workers
positions organized into a chain of command, a hierarchy
rules and regulations regarding work
separation of personal and official property
selection of personnel on the basis of technical qualifications
employment that is career-oriented
While these principles may not merit a news alert today, they represented a critical insight for tradition-bound European societies in the late 1800s and early 1900s, when Weber did much of his writing. In that period German government agencies were pioneering modern administration techniques that were replacing practices based on loyalty to the nobility and the Catholic Church dating back to the Middle Ages. In the United States until the late 1800s, jobs in the still relatively small government bureaucracy were largely awarded on the basis of political allegiance rather than capability. In the aftermath of every election of high-level executive officials (mayors, governors, and the president), it was common for functionaries at all levels of government, right down to the postal carriers and street sweepers, to be replaced with the winners' political supporters.
Weber's basic conception, despite being extensively critiqued and qualified, continues to cast a long shadow on both academic and commonsense conceptions of public bureaucracies. A careful reading reveals that Weber never expected actual bureaucracies to be perfect exemplars of the general characteristics he applied to them in his effort to contrast them with their more corrupt, less efficient historical predecessors. Nonetheless, we tend to idealize many of the features of bureaucratic organization, at least in the abstract or when applied to private enterprise, and then are chronically disappointed when bureaucrats fall short of such idealistic expectations. When our public bureaucracies are shown to be not so efficient, or subject to some degree of nepotism or graft, we shake our heads in disgust.
Ironically, sometimes we express contempt for bureaucracies - both private and public - when they actually behave as expected. How many times have we rolled our eyes or shaken our heads when referring to "faceless bureaucrats," or the "bureaucrats in Austin" (or in Washington)? These references and attitudes are often expressed when we perceive that the bureaucracy is out of touch or slow moving. Yet that is exactly how the bureaucracy is designed to function. Bureaucracies are not supposed to be blown by the rapidly shifting winds of public opinion, or to be responsive to the particular needs of small groups and individuals when they want to contravene rules and regulations made for all citizens. Annoying as it may be, procedure exists to ensure fairness and regularity.
In this sense, the centrality of bureaucracy to modern life is twofold. Large scale government bureaucracy organized around Weberian principles is a rational solution to the scale and complexity of the tasks governments must accomplish in industrialized democratic societies. On the other hand we often blame the bureaucracy when our faith in progress and the ability of humans to accomplish ever more daunting tasks is periodically frustrated. With ambitions of social and technical progress come inevitable disappointments. And the modern bureaucracy is almost always the first thing we blame, whether the problem is large, as in a sputtering public education system, or small, as in a long wait to renew our driver's licenses.
