Like many words in the English language, bureaucracy has been twisted over the years to mean something different; much like how awful went from meaning “full of awe” to “very bad or unpleasant”. In And the Band Played On, we see organizational practices that obstruct progress referred to as “bureaucratic”, when the official definition refers to a system of governance where state officials make important decisions instead of representatives. A complete switch in how we see our administration and governmental organizations occurs because people do not trust their leaders. This fear of the unknown is the central theme of the movie and relates back to the United States governance: of the people, by the people, for the people. When the public deems that they are not making the important decisions, then bureaucracy has turned on its head and the ironic use becomes the true pronouncement. Irony is rampant in the movie, especially in use by the gay movement to cover the underlying horror of the disease. An unknown disease that is not like anything anyone has seen before, but that multiple providers are reporting. When providers report it to higher officials, or “escalate” the issues, there are multiple roadblocks to their forward movement, but these roadblocks all stem from fear. For example, the French doctor who fights public fears and opinions, saying: “That hospital where those people go”. The fear of the disease spreads, along with the disease, everywhere.
Although bureaucracy’s have a significant amount of power over the United States most important decisions and laws they cannot always execute or perform certain actions. Two particular forces who oversee and control bureaucratic agencies are congress and the president who is part of the executive branch. Both congress and the president are constantly competing for agency control (Lecture 7 10/24/16). They both have their own individual and unique sets of strategies they use such as using congressional control, appropriations process, privatization, executive order and management of agency budget in order to seize complete command. The main goal of these two means of control are to ultimately limit the discretion of bureaucrats and to also if possible shrink the size and number of bureaucracies.
Throughout the rigmarole of political history of the United States of America, the growth of the “fourth branch of government”, the Bureaucracy, has been a prominent, controversial topic. Peter Woll, in his article “Constitutional Democracy and Bureaucratic Power”, and James Q. Wilson, in his article “The Rise of the Bureaucratic State”, discuss this developing administrative branch. The Constitution has no written mention of an “administrative branch”, and today’s Bureaucracy is often tedious, corrupt, and even undemocratic. But such a branch’s development and expansion is necessary in order to keep par with an evolving and changing society.
In his book, Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies do and why they do it, James Q. Wilson’s main objective is to better define the behavior of governmental bureaucracy, believing traditional organizational and economic theory does not adequately explain their actions. Wilson believes that government agencies are doomed to be perceived as inefficient entities by the public. He gives examples of commonly held perceptions of bureaucracies and reveals how these are mostly misconceptions. He points to the environment of bureaucracy, where rules and procedures, dictate goals, along with context, constraints, values, and norms.
The federal bureaucracy is the group of government organizations that implement policy. The federal bureaucrats belong, for the most part, to the group of government agencies led by the president’s cabinet (the collection of appointed officials tasked with leading various federal government departments such as the State Department, Department of Homeland Security etc.) (Geer et al.). These department heads, known as cabinet secretaries, are appointed by each new president. The federal bureaucracy is responsible for writing regulations that implement the laws. In this, the federal bureaucracy’s importance cannot be understated. Congress passes laws, the president signs them, but it is the responsibility of the bureaucracy to actually implement them in the most effective, unburdening way.
“The government, which was designed for the people, has got into the hands of the bosses and their employers, the special interests. An invisible empire has been set up above the forms of democracy.” This quote by Woodrow Wilson fits perfectly with the topics that will be discussed. The major theme of this paper is bureaucracy. Bureaucracy refers to an administrative system in which agencies staffed largely by non elected officials perform specific tasks in accordance with standard procedures. The work of the bureaucracy involves implementing laws and procedures. Does this sound familiar? That is because most bureaucrats work for the executive branch of the government. The executive branch is the one that enforces the laws. Some of these law enforcing jobs include mail clerk, police officer, fireman, and first responder. These jobs are essential to our lives as Americans and are greatly appreciated. This paper will expound on the history, usage, and the Cabinet
The text describes a bureaucracy as a large, complex organization composed of appointed officials. The departments and agencies of the US government make up the federal bureaucracy. The federal bureaucracy has 15 federal cabinet departments with about 2 million full-time employees. (Wilson et al, 290)
Even when all mechanisms are present to make the bureaucracy function cleanly and effectively, if there is a political facilitator who comes from the top level of the bureaucracy, these good systems can be compromised with just a phone call or some marginal note from the high-ranking elected official. Rules will be circumvented, budgets can be siphoned off to favor a project or an ally of the
"To the extent that US bureaucracy succeeds, it is due not just to the competent work inside individual organization but the competent interactions among them.” (Goodsell 2008) This quote from Goodsell’s book sums up the book perfectly for me when it comes to the tasks that society puts on bureaucrats. Before reading Charles Goodsell’s, The Case for Bureaucracy: A Public Administration Polemic, I did not appreciate the United States Government and what is accomplishes on a daily basis. Goodsell’s book examines how essential the United States’ public service institutions are, even when though they are often heavily criticized. Goodsell showcases the research he’s conducted and survey evidence that shows how that bureaucracy is effective in accomplishing tasks that are free of corruption and staffed with employees who are passionate about their work. He discusses criticism and misconceptions of the United States system of government and argues against that. Overall, Goodsell’s book has reinforced and fully convinced me that bureaucracy at all levels in the government is both effective and efficient. The thesis of the book is to describe the larger difference between bureaucracy’s reputation and its actual record. Goodsell discusses issues of bureaucracy, over expectations of bureaucracy, and why bureaucracy is so important. Common misconceptions
Goodsell’s book “The Case for Bureaucracy: A Public Administration Polemic” is composed on the contrary. Goodsell makes several arguments in favor of the fundamental soundness of American bureaucracy. His thoughts are derived from a core belief: the quality of public service in the United States is vastly underrated (p. xi). His polemic is such that the flaws and the faults of bureaucracy in America are far fewer on a proportionate basis than is generally thought. The argument of this book is that a wide gap exists between bureaucracy’s repopulation and its record. Despite endless ranting to the contrary, American bureaucracy does work – in fact, quite well (p. 4). According to Goodsell criticisms of government bureaucracy are based more on myth than reality. Goodsell argues that government agencies actually play a valuable and indispensable role in making our society a better place to live. For instance Goodsell examines studies that show what he argues is evidence of public satisfaction with bureaucracy. His arguments are based on such statistics as “most” citizens believing that police do not accept bribes (p. 27) or that “only” a quarter of welfare recipients waited a half hour or more for service (p. 35). In addressing direct performance evaluation, Goodsell shows that public bureaucracy has witnessed overall growth in productivity from 1967 through 1990. He acknowledges, however, that this cannot be fairly compared to private industry’s experience over the
Bureaucrat is a dirty word to some people in modern society, so how can a bureaucracy be a good thing? Many Public Administration theorist, argue that bureaucracy is essential to the growth and expansion of the United States. Most of the criticism of the bureaucracy within the government is based on myth versus reality. Federal agencies play a critical and a valuable role within society and are indispensable to the operations of the federal government. Bureaucracy can be simply defined as the system in which decision are made by Public Administrators rather than elected officials (legislator) within the government. However, when the average citizen of just says the single word bureaucracy thoughts and images of evoked over how negative
The word “bureaucracy” has a negative connotation to many people. The fact is that our current system of government would not be able to survive without bureaucracies. The bureaucracy has become the “fourth branch” of the government, it has quasi-legislative and judicial powers and in it’s own field its authority is rarely challenged. The presence of these large, inefficient structures is necessary if the American people want to continue receiving the benefits that they expect.
Americans depend on government bureaucracies to accomplish most of what we expect from government, and we are oftentimes critical of a bureaucracy’s handling of its responsibilities. Bureaucracy is essential for carrying out the tasks of government. As government bureaucracies grew in the twentieth century, new management techniques sought to promote greater efficiency. The reorganization of the government to create the Department of Homeland Security and the Bush administration’s simultaneous push to contract out jobs to private employers raises the question as to whether the government or the private sector can best manage our national security. Ironically, the criticism of the bureaucracy may be a product
Bureaucracy was one of the most popular theories developed and is used in some modern organisations such as the NHS and the Police. Through the years bureaucracy has developed a bad reputation for de-humanizing jobs (Grey, 30) “In the ideal-type, people are no more than parts in a well-oiled machine –devoid of passion, prejudice and personality”, although some people prefer this structure (Handy, 22) “No one, it seems, approves of bureaucracy except, interestingly, lots of people in organisations who like to know where they stand.”
Weber states that organizations regulations are formed by few people and this people are the boss, administration employee who tends to have representation powers (Roth and Wittich, 1968). Weber states that the state tends to use bureaucracy on its people in order to establish authority. Bureaucracy is present in various areas in the environment and once bureaucracy is produced then it becomes difficult to
Reflect on your reading for the week, specifically Analytical Exercise 8. Is another form of structural configuration better suited to multiproduct, multiservice companies? If not, is there a form of departmentalization for multiproduct, multiservice companies which would match somewhat the divisional structure configuration?"