The Necessary Use Of Bureaucracy In The United States

Paul C. Light’s (2006) article, “The Tides of Reform Revisited: Patterns in Making Government Work, 1945-2002”, has revealed to the readers how the current landscape of administrative reorganization is and how the sphere is gradually being dominated by four major competing ideas, viz. scientific management, the war on waste, the watchful eye, and liberation management. Light (2006), has explained how at the very heart of the American reform policies lays the four tides of reform ingrained with four philosophies. Light (2006) has stated that “the Constitution contains harbingers of all four “tides,” or philosophies, of administrative reform that populate the federal statute books today. It spoke to the logical of scientific management by creating a single executive with tight day-to-day control over the officers and departments of government. It laid basis for future wars on waste by requiring an annual accounting of expenditures and revenue while reserving the appropriation power for Congress.” Light (2006) has also stated that, the Constitution also “emphasized the need for a watchful eye on government excess through an elegant system of checks and balances. And it invented future efforts to liberate government from excessive regulation by vesting all executive powers in the president.” It is noteworthy that, Light (2006) has tried to make the readers understand how in the recent decades, all the four tides have accelerated in pace and intensity and how such acceleration

Although some might believe that bureaucrats are always trying to expand their agencies, researches have proved that is not always the case. Instead, they try to validate their position by doing a good job for the people.

This allows for the bureaucracy to make laws through rule-making, which is delegation of authority. The bureaucracy delegates authority to the department or agency that will be responsible for its implementation. The bureaucracy in the United States is partly made up civil service agencies, that regardless of who has been elected to an office, the bureaucracy continues, despite the decisions made in the political process. Because of the framework of bureaucracy, it has been considered politically neutral.

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

When the framers of the Constitution developed our government, they gave Congress the authority to create the departments necessary to carry out the day-to-day responsibilities of governing - the federal bureaucracy. The vast majority of the departments, agencies, and commissions that make up the federal bureaucracy today were created by Congress through legislative acts. Congress is unable to act in a bubble though, due to the nature of the system’s built-in checks and balances, Congress must first get the president’s “buy off” which is represented by his signature. Although Congress has the authority to create these agencies (with the president’s agreement

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)

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.

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.

What I read about reducing the cost of the national bureaucracy was Under the Hood: The Cost of Bureaucracy by Allison Gofman. The major points of her article are that there are many different agencies, departments, and groups of people who deal with the same things throughout the government. With having many different groups of people dealing with the same issues, there isn't one federal bureaucracy. Instead, its a bunch of different groups with their own interests and own opinions on one topic. The article also states that "public bureaucracies are not designed for efficiency" and I can see why. The bureaucracies just want to have power and influence over decisions that their agency gets to make at later dates.

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.”

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

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.

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.

Abstract: The theory of bureaucracy was proposed and published by Marx Weber (1947). Although there are some studies on this perspective were discussed before him, those theories did not form as systematic theory. After Weber, the issue of bureaucracy becomes a hot topic in the field of social organization. Almost all well-known scholars such as Martin and Henri have published their views on it. Bureaucracy adapted as the traditional organizational model during industrial society, essentially, bureaucracy could exist rational. This essay firstly will review the principle of bureaucracy in organization based on organizational design perspective. Secondly, it will analyze the strengths and weakness of

With the creation of new states and the intervention of government in everyday life of citizens necessitated the need for ideal-type of bureaucracy. Everywhere whether in developed or developing nations, bureaucratic structure is a common phenomenon.