lecture 12 - modern bureaucracy Flashcards
modern bureaucracy - definition
Max Weber
(derived conclusions by studying Prussia before introducing const. democracy and after)(1884)
- hierarchical organization with carefully defined division of tasks
- there is specialization in the org. of bureaucracy (each part has special/specific task)
- sense of hierarchy between administrators: there’s always supervisors
!bureaucracy/public administration is not just ministries - career-based personnel recruited on the basis of merit
- impersonal application of rules
*bureaucrats are not supposed to act to individual or political preferences
*kind of parallel with judicial activism
-> citizens are treated in the same way
different forms/features
taken together = makes modern bureaucracy a powerful instrument of the state
career-based personnel recruited on the basis of merit
life-long contracts, permanently employed, fixed salary = career based personnel
merit system
- bureaucrats are hired based on their professional qualifications and competence
- not fired for political reasons
political (patronage) system
(how it was done before const. monarchy)
- bureaucrats are hired and fired based on support/membership of a particular political party/group or individual politician
promise of Weberian Bureaucracy
- effectiveness: things get done
= life-long employment is supposed to attract the most qualified people
= stable careers + clear tasks -> people know what they are doing -> effective in carrying out taks - efficiency: things get done at a relatively low cost
= fixed salary + career building within bureaucracy -> will obstain from pursuing private interest (no corruption) - equal treatment of citizens (extension of democratic rights is related to bureaucratic organization)
= if bureaucrats impersonally apply rules of conduct -> guarantee against arbitrariness + makes it predictive
= application of merocratic principle of recruitment prevents (class) inequalities in bureaucracy
Weberian bureaucracy has become the golden standard + is being spread across the world (e.g. by EU + WB)
why should we know about bureaucracy?
- emergence of the state: state is inevitably linked to the existence of bureaucracy
(increased infrastructural capacity) - bureaucracies function as extended arm of the state = prime instrument policy creation and implementation
(politicians can’t do much if there’s no bureaucracy) - often tries to reform bureaucracy (e.g. Pendleton Act 1883 USA or Iceland 2008)
(USA: Pendleton Act 1883)
= civil service reform, change of hiring practices for bureaucratic jobs
(Iceland: after the 2008 banking crisis)
= civil service reform 2010-2013
(incompetency in positions in banks -> bank collapses)
was in center of banking crisis: Icelandic banks collapsed
- was interesting: Iceland jailed the bankers responsible for collapses (unique) + led to changes civil service legislation
= increasing politicization
(UK: Health Care Policy Area)
- Department of Health = ministry responsible for formulating policies
- non-gov. agencies and regulatory commissions: Healthcare Commission + MHRA
regulate something within healthcare area - NHS = national health service (biggest employment) = all hospitals are part of this
(EU enlargement late 1990s)
Eastern states wanted to join, EU made conditions to be allowed to enter : Copenhagen criteria
one of these criteria = functioning state administration (basically the Weberian criteria)
EU now: even financing regional schools of public administration in countries that are supposed to be entered into the EU
- e.g. ReSPA: regional school of public administration
problems with modern/Weberian bureaucracy
‘dictatorship of the official’
= bureaucrats become masters rather than servants of politicians
- term mentioned by Weber
- e.g. Yes, Minister: minister has ideas about what to do in politics, bureaucrats constantly try to undermine it
- dictatorship of a certain class of people (e.g. same educational background)
- this is not how Weber meant it
fragmentation
= emphasis on specialization leads to creating fragmented administration, it becomes splintered, so that it is hard to cope for citizens
- flipside of specialization
- e.g. Dutch hospital
proliferation
= never ending expansion of the state apparatus (bureaucracy gets larger than is necessary/controleable)
why?
- public choice scholars: bureaucrats are not motivated by public interest, but by expanding their budgets (larger budget = more prestige)
- public choice = rational choice applied to public administration
-> sometimes we do reforms
reforms of modern bureaucracy
increase politicization = try to (re)introduce political criteria in practices of hiring/firing bureaucrats
- tries to address problem of dictatorship of the official
introduce new institutions and policies
New Public Management (NPM)
increase politicization
politicization is often allowed to some level, usually at the top level, lower levels should be protected from it
- ! there are also acceptable types of politicization
extreme forms
-
spoils system of recruitment = winner of elections have right to appoint bureaucrats into the state administration
e.g. Andrew Jackson late C19 US: fired entire presidential administration (wanted to have representative bureaucracy + have both pol. groups be responsive to what he did) -
clientelism = process whereby state jobs are distributed on a large scale to supporters of political parties to reward them for their votes
e.g. post-war Italy + Greece (until now) -
nomenklatura = let state be run by people committed to the goals of the political party
origins: communist regimes (SU)
new institutions
= introduce institutions that are supposed to change the way Weberian/modern democracies work
Ombudsmen = state-official appointed (usually by parliament) to protect citizens from procedural misconduct
!!they are advisors, have non-binding powers
- people can come to them and they will research misconduct
- origins in EU, but in more and more places + in more types of institutions (e.g. uni’s also has ambudsman)
- e.g. in NL: report that said whole bureaucracy was to complicated -> report got ignored
Affirmative Action / positive discrimination = explicitly introduces politically defined criteria in the recruitment for the administration
- e.g. South Africa after apartheid (was also applied in private sector)
NPM
new public management
= introduction of market and business principles to public administration
-
competition within public sector
= no specialization, you break it up into different units that compete with one another and with the private sector organizations (e.g. for gov. contracts) -
performance-based employment
= no life-long contracts, renewal based on performance
= opens up jobs for people outside of the bureaucracy -
managerial methods of administration
= performance targets rather than routines
systematic attempt to change Weberian bureaucracy into something else : different principles
- (Raegan, Thatcher, Anglosaksen countries introduced the principles first, other countries followed)
- Ghana: NPM reforms is caused by organizations as the WB
NPM and Dutch Unis
competition within public sector
- competition for students: you get paid for the share of the student market
(not just for nr of students) - faculties + departments also compete with eachother
- promise: cheaper education for more people + more choices for students/costumers
performance-based employment
- 40% teachers has fixed-term contracts
- gov. board this uni. also has people from private sector (e.g. Shell)
- promise: flexible organization, higher performance
managerial methods of administration
- targets of how many students need to graduate
- targets of how many PHD students need to be produced
- how many nobel prizes need to be won
- how many research grants need to be received
promise: better quality education + responsiveness to gov.
are NPM reforms any good?
no definite answer
- haydays of NPM gone = no doubt that public sector has been profoundly influenced
- unclear if NPM has delivered improvement public services to the citizens
e.g. good moment to judge = covid (-> criticism on NPM) - there are scholars of public administration that argue that ask: what is the fundamental purpose?
- to improve public admin for citizens
- to change public admin to serve some other interest?
state no longer here to serve the citizens, but to serve the econ. interest of powerful eco groups
