Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Bureaucracy Martin Albrow

    Uploaded by

    APPEARS
    22 views19 pages

    Original Title

    Kupdf.net Bureaucracy Martin Albrow

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    22 views19 pages

    Bureaucracy Martin Albrow

    Uploaded by

    APPEARS

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 19
    Bureaucracy is not simply an emotive catchword. It has a respected position in the literature on managerial efficiency and civil service responsibility, and has occupied a central place in more than one grand theory of the nature of ‘modern society. Yet this very ubiquity makes it one of the most ambiguous and puzzling terms in the vocabulary of politics. This book is the first to consider the full variety and range of concepts of bureaucracy. It explains their development and their conflicts in order to bring the reader to a new Awareness of their implications. In pursuit of this objective, the author offers the first analysis of nineteenth-century ideas of bureaucracy and arrives at a new interpretation of Max Weber's theory of bureaucracy. The current literature in a wide variety of disciplines is reviewed so that this book is essential reading not only for political scientists, but also for sociologists, historians and management and administrative scientists, while the discussion is of importance to any politically conscious citizen. MARTIN ALBROW studied history at Peterhouse, Cambridge, and sociology at the London School of, Economics. He has taught at the Universities of Leicester and Reading, and is now Professor of Sociology at University College, Cardiff. "10008773" o MMS ATT Cover design by Paul May f = 3 > i Ciassilicagao: /.12 (© 1970 by Pall Mall Press Lid, London All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of {his publication may be made without written permission, 'No paragraph of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted save with writen permission oF in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, ‘of under the terms of any licence permiting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London WIP SHE. ‘Any person who does any unauthorised actin relation to this Publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and cvit claims for damages. First published in 1970 by Pall Mall Press Ltd ‘This edition published in 1970 by ‘THE MACMILLAN PRESS LTD Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 2XS ‘and London Companies and representatives Throughout the world ISBN 0-333-11262-8 Reprinted 1978, 1979, 1982, 1984, 1985, 1992, 1994 Printed in Hong Kong, Contents Acknowledgements Introduction 1/The Emergence of the Concept ‘The origin ofthe term Early nineteenth-century concepts ‘The English theory Continental theory ‘The major nineteenth-century themes 2/The Classical Formulations ‘Mosca and Michels ‘Max Weber: the theory of organization ‘Max Weber: the concept of bureaucracy ‘Max Weber: the limits on bureeucracy’ 3/The Debate with Weber ‘The sources of Weber’s theory ‘The case aguinst Weber A reply to the critics 4/Bureaucracy and the Ideologists Karl Mare ‘The later Marxists ‘The Fascists ‘The ideologists of representative democracy " 13 16 6 1% 33. 3 37 45 50 En a n 1 Emernencs of the Concept ‘The origin of the term Ina leer of July 1, 1764, the Baron de Grimm, the French philosopher, wrote: “We are obsessed by the idea of regulation, and ‘our Masters of Requests refuse to understand that there i an infinity of things ina great state with which a government should not concern itself, The late M. de Gournay* ... sometimes used t0 say: “We have an illness in France which bids fair to play havoc ‘with us; this illness is called bureaumania”, Sometimes he used to invent a fourth or fifth form of government under the heading of bureaucracy.” A year later the same author wrote: ‘The real spit of the laws of France is that bureaucracy of which the late M. de Gournay ... used to complain so greatly here the offices, clerks, secretaries, inspectors and intendants are not appointed to benefit ‘the public interest, indeed the public interest appears to have been established so that offices might exist. ‘Weare fortunate in having the invention ofthe word so precisely documented.* But it would be a mistake to confuse the coining of @ term with the revelation ofa new concept. Since de Gournay avery ‘wid variety of ideas has been brought together under the heading ‘of bureaucracy. Many have origins too remote to trace. Complaints about bad government must be a5 old as government itself. Con= ‘oem that sovereigns should be served by diligent and faithful ‘officials was a commonplace in political thought long before the cighteenth century. Machiavelli urged the prince to choose com- ‘petent ministers, and to reward theic fidelity so that they should ‘ot have to seek rewards from other sources. Not even the idea of administrative eficiency is peculiar to modern, or indeed Western, thought. From 165 3.c. Chinese officials were selected by examina tion, Chinese administration was familia with notion of seaiorty, merit ratings, oficial statistics and written reports end the writing of Shen Puchai (d. 337 3.) provided a set of principles which ‘have been likened to twentieth-century theories of administration Such ideas about government did not have to wait upon de The origin of the term)xy Gournsy’s fi for expression before they could be expressed. But ‘there are two reasons why his formulation should be regarded a3 significant. He explicitly evokes the classical Greck classification of governments. In so doing he invents another type of government to add to long recognized forms, such as monarchy, aristocracy and democracy. He does not, therefore, conceive of eighteenth- century French government as some malformation of monarchy, such a8 tyranny. He is denying a new group of rulers and & ‘method of governing The complaint against them isnot that they ace acting unlawfully, outside their proper authocity, but that ‘governing seems to have become an end in itself. This addition to ‘the classical typology, albet cursorly identified, must be regarded ‘an important conceptual innovation. ‘The second reason for emphasizing de Gournsy's invention is related to the frst, but is almost adventitious. Itconcern the popu Jacty the term has acquired. In the language of the eighteenth ccanmy ‘bureau’ a8 well as signifying a writing-table, already meant a place where ofcials worked. ‘The addition of « sux, Aecived ffom the Greek word for ‘rule’, resulted in term with ‘considerable power to penetrate other cultures. The Greek con- ‘=p09 of government hd Tong been domesticated in the major Shops anges, The fem coud cay deg thee ‘ransiterations a ‘or ‘aristocracy’. Te rapidly became part of en international vocabulary of politics. The French bureau cratie rapidly became the German Bureaubrate (later Borokrti), the Taian burerasia, athe English “bureaucracy”, Further~ ‘ore, on analogy with the derivatives of democracy, with barean- cry wat bueno, Burenucrate, Durer, busca therefor, ith, ot suprising that early dict ‘bureaucracy are highly consistent, both with each other and with de Gournay. The Dictionary of the French Academy accepted the ‘word in ts 1798 supplement end define ita: ‘Power, influence of ‘the heads and staf of governmental bureaux.” An 1813 edition of| ‘8 German dictionary of foreign expressions defined bureaucracy as:“The authority or power which various goverment departments and ther branches arogate t themselves over fellow citzens.”* ‘An Italian technical dictionary of 1828 referred to it thus: ‘Neo Jogism, signifying the power of officials in public administration.» ‘The French Academy aso accepted ‘bureaucratic’ in reference to definitions of 18)The Emergence of the Concept ‘the influence of governmental bureaux, and also a regime where bureaux multiply without need’, This dual meaning attributed to “bureaucratic gives the first hint of the complex development the concept was to undergo. Early nineteenth-century concepts In spite of ts origin inthe thinking of the French physio- cats and its aceptance by the Jexicographers, the eaty use ofthe term ‘bureaucracy’ seems to have been confined to the works of polemicsts and novels. Balzac was largely responsible for popt~ Iaszing the word in French. His novel at 1836, Lee Employ, was actully half treatise on the ways of bureaucracy. His vtuperative tone isa good example ofa way of thinking that has never ceased to have its adherents: Since 1789 the State, or if you like to have itso, La Pari, has taken the place ofthe sovereign. The leek no longer take thei instructions direct from one ofthe frst magi ‘wates in the realm . . . and thus Bureaucracy, the giant power wielded by pigmies, came into the work. Posibiy ‘Napoleon retarded its inluenoe for time, for all things and ‘al men were force to bead to his will... Bureateracy as dete organi however, nde ‘ontionl government with a natural kindness for mediocrity predi- lection for categorical statements and report, government 1 foy and medeome, i shor, a mal shoppe So succesful was Balzac in projecting his image of bureau ‘racy that when Le Play ‘the fist serious Freach con sideration of the concept in 1864, he felt obliged to apologize for ‘this hybrid word created by alight literature’. The 1873 edition of Litte’s dictionary still fele that the word was a barely correct neologism.* Even in 1896 a French politcal dictionary expressed the view that the word originated in Germany and war only ‘opularized in Francs by Balzac.* “The ida thatthe term came from Germany was not surprising. ‘Duing the French Revolution German newpaper 2eported events in France and spoke of bureaucracy without further explanation tse the press the earliest known German reference to bureaa- ‘racy would appear to be by Christin Kraus, one of Kant’s Barly ninetoothcentryconcepts}19 colleagues. In a letter of 1799 he contrasted Prussia with England, ‘where, he argued, the populace remained the rock-fast base ofthe ‘pyramid of state, while ‘the Prussian stat, fur from being an un- limited monarchy ... is but a thinly veiled aristocracy... which biatantly rules the country as a bureaucracy’ The term, however, dd not immediately enter serious political writing. Wilhelm von Humbold’s essay of 1792, dn Arcempe to Determine the Limits of the Hifectioeness of che State, failed to mention bureaucracy, Bat its ‘theme, the fear that an increase of state authority entailed the ‘growth of administation, and the fear thatthe affirs of tate were ‘becoming mechanical while men were being transformed into in a letter of the Freihecr vom Stein in 1821, Stein did not shrink from indicting the system he ‘had administered and reformed after the Prussian defeat by ‘Napoleon in 1806. But he spoke of Baralstes rather than ‘bureaucrats: Invite four plat scene up the pk fous ce and similar lifeless governmental machines: salatied, hence steiving to maintsin and increase the numberof those with salaries; with a knowledge of books, hence not living inthe real wotld, but in one of letters; with no cause to support, for they are allied with none of the clases of citizens that ‘constitute the state, they are a caste in their own right, the ‘ape nd thy bring up thar erento be eal? ‘usable writing machines.*7 ‘This passage was used by Karl Heinzeo, a radical who had to fee from Prussia. He included it in his polemic of 1845 sgainst Prussian bureaucracy, bute substicuted ‘bureaucrat’ for ‘bualist™ (as wel as adding embelishments of his owa).** 20) The Bmergnce of the Concept robsbly the work of Johan Gorres did most to publicize the ‘concept of buremucracy ia early nincteenth-century Germany. ‘Public, romantic founder of the newspaper the Riviniche ‘Merkur, be became so important an opponent of the monarchy that hesso was forced to leave Psst. Using the classical typology of government to provide the elements of his analysis he developed ‘theory ofthe besis of national unity. Monarchical and democratic ‘elements had to be combined to provide co-operation and mutual respect betwen rulers and ruled, Bureaucracy was te result when hse condos wore not ile, ta Zire ond he whos (1821), he saw bureaucracy asthe cv nstinton analogous to sanding army. It was based on the sme principles of discipline, ‘promtion, group honour and centralization. The administrative techniques which fled the gap left bythe lack of trust between tulers and ruled became principles of state. Bureucracy succeeded ‘in extending the principle of subordination, which wes basic tits cown developmen, from its own organism tothe subject popula~ ‘on, to conglomerate them gradually nto masse, in which people ‘only counted as numbers, deriving vale not from ther selves, Dut from their psitions’ Tis important to note a dual emphasis in these cary ideas of bureaucracy. tis viewed not only as fort of government where power is in the hands of oficial es also a collective designation {or those officials. If one considers the concepts of aristocracy and democracy it is possible to sce how this could have happened, “Acstocracy’ is wed almost exchsiey to refer to a particular social stati, rather than toa form of government. On the other hhand ‘democracy’ is normally taken to refer to the instittional ‘forms through which the will of « population may be realized, (Chis alg way, icideaaly fom the Aristotelian concept of| democracy a the rule ofa class) Either emphasis was possible in the early of bureaucracy. The ealy Wetes on ‘the subjec perceived lary thet this new form of government was slated to anew element i the system of social tratieation. It did ‘ot seem inappropeate, given the se of the tem ‘aristocracy’, to ‘ee thar ne eens te benny Tn English syntax the presence or sbsenoe of on ntle normally signfcs which ofthe two aspects ofthe concept is being sessed: ‘the’ ona buresuracy eferrng toa body of bareaucre ‘bureau racy designating procedures of administration. In more reosat The Bglish theory ego, te concept of bureaucracy bas cored bot into and associational aspects, On this simple, but vital, distinction depend two basic modes of sociological thinking: the analysis of Seton, and he szly of groupe If his cincon fad ays ‘en econned ch ofthe onfson nthe estre on tea (ray cout ave ben rede, The English theory {eis largely rough trnsations from the German litert- ture that we are able fo determine the time ofthe reception of “oureaucracy’ into English An ealer work by Girzes, Germany dnd the Revolution (1819) was teansated into English in wo sepae- ste versions in 18202 In both eases direct translation of bursa Inaioh into “buresucrati was avoided. On the other hand an 13832 transiaon of the tavel letters of a German peince reported his view thus: ‘The Bureaucracy has taken the place of the Aristo~ ‘cacy, and will pechape oon become equally hereditary. The 3827 edition of Johnson's Dictionary had no entry for the word. On the other hand The Popular Encyclopaedia of 1837 (sl besed fn the great German Conversatonlsicon), contained an item on. the buena system, or bureaucracy’ “These translations encouraged a contrast to be dawn between agland and the Continent which became a standard prt of ane- teenth-oentury observations on bureaucracy. Inthe great period tal, suchas Blackavod’s ox the Westminster Rion, commentary on continental institutions almost invariably included a sel congratulatory sider on how diferent things were in England. Carle's terse comment in 1850 on buresucracy—the continental auisanoe... can see no risk or possibility in England, Democracy {shot enough here. .summes! up the prevailing Eagish judge rent on the subjeci© Bren Herbert Spence, who Was #0 con- ‘zene to establish the imis and functions ofthe sae, was cotent to mention bureaucracy in the context of comments on France** However it should not be though thatthe assessments of bureau- ezacy in the ninereenti-cenury jouroal were invariably as et functory as Crple's, Many of them anticipated points upon which ‘whole theories have been centred, An essy of 1836 0n the French cciucational estem observed that, for any defect in bureaucratic inery, the remedy aways took the form of furthee machin- cays In 1842 J. S. Blac, a commentator onthe German seen, 122) Th Emergence of he Concept ‘considered thet the way in which the Prussian bureaucracy monop- ‘lized the intelligence of the nation was detrimental t energy and ‘enterprise outside it, and resulted in subatssiveness and servi ‘This last point was one which particularly impressed the major “English writer on bureaucracy in the nineteenth century, John ‘Stuart Mill In his Principles of Political Economy (1848), he set himself egninst ‘concentrating in a dominant bureaucracy all the skill and expecience in the management of large interes and all ‘the power of organized action, existing ia the community” He saw ‘tas ‘a main cause of the inferior capacity foc political life which has hitherto characterized the over-governed countries of the continent’ ‘In On Liberty (1859) Mill developed these views sil futher. ‘The dangers of bureaucracy were singled out forthe peroration of ‘that immensely influential esay. He held them to constinte the ‘third and most important reason for objecting to government nter- ference, even whet it dd not afrnge liberty. For, the more func- tions a government took on the mare careers i offered, and thus ‘the more hanger-on it attracted. The more eficient the machinery of administretin, the tore it would monopolize the talent of the sation, To be admitted tothe bureaucracy would be the summit of ambition, while outside it there would be few qualifed to sritcize. Both governors and governed become the slaves of the bureaucracy, and no reform would be posible. ‘Where everything is done through the bureaucracy, nothing to which the buremrecy is eally adverse can be done a ll."* ‘The concept of bureaucracy reached its fll importance in Mil's politcal theory in his Considerations on Repretentatice Government (1861), In comparing types of goverament, he argued that the only ‘orm, other than the representative, which had high political kill and ability was bureaucracy, even when it went under the name of ‘monarchy oF aristocracy. “The work of government his bea fa the hands of governors by profession; which isthe exsence and meaning of bureaucracy» Such a government ‘accumulates ex perience, acquires well-tried and wellconsidered traditional ‘maxims, and makes provision for appropriate practical knowledge in those who have te actual conduct of esi." But, on the debi ‘bureaucracies die of routine. “They petish by the immuta- bility oftheir maxims. Only the popular element in goverament ‘was capable of lowing the conceptions of aman of original genius ‘The English theory [a3 {» prevail over trained mediocrity. The governments of China and ‘Russia were examples of what happened when the bureaucracy hheld power. Skined administration was certainly necessary, but it had to be under the general control of bodies representative of the ‘Mis forsilaons were bref but infantil, The sharp anl- ‘nomy he discerned between bureaucracy and democracy has been ‘ezamined repeatedly since his writing. But jst os important asthe ‘substantive issue of the relations of the administrative system to ‘constitutional democracy—which his concept of ‘bureaucracy Nighlghed—oe he nay oe of what itera were appro- plate for classifying governments. Mill’s emphasis, in contrasting ‘democracy and bureaucracy, was on the locus of decision-making ‘and real power, not upon the formél processes of selection for supposedly sovereign bodies. This was of greet importance in shaping Mosce’s ideas (ee chapter 2), and, more immediately, Proved a very suitable theme for more concrete elaboration by the ‘most incisive. ni ‘commentator on the English constitution, Walter Bagehot, In The English Constitution (1867), Bogehot warned against an undue admiration forthe Peso este eye that might be ‘ccasioned by its recent military successes. The successes of bur ‘emucracy could only be limited. Te depended on routine which, ‘adapted to one situation, was insuficiently flexible to meet new problems. Only sixty years before the Prussian system was held ‘to be ‘dead and formal. In fact Bagehot was less impressed then ‘Mill with the efficiency of bureaucracy. “The trath is that a skilled ‘bureaucracy—a bureaucracy trained from early life to its special avocation—is, though it boasts the appearance of scince, quite {inconsistent withthe true principles ofthe art of business.™« This is not to say that Bagchot was aguingt expertise, of the proper kind and in the tight place. He did not approve of the American system. of wholesale administrative changes when @ new party cime to Power. (He was writing before the reforms made by President Cleveland.) He indicted the classes from whose ranks administrators were drawn for ignorance and lack of business ed cation. He found the acrangement of public offices in England t0 be casual and unsystematic, ‘But, in spite of these defects, for Bagehot the great virtue of English administration was that a frequent change of ministers 24 The Emerges ofthe Concept ever allowed it to sink into routine, New men, sensive to ouside ‘pinion, were always avalable to re-invigorate the administrative process, Bagehot was contrasting bureaucracy, unchecked by wider ‘spercnoe and opinion, with public administration in a system of patiamentary goverment. But he did not make wse of Mills abstract jstifiation that eficiency had to be tempered in the in- terest ofiberty. Public administration in democracy was actully tore efcieat. He likened it to the succzs of the great oine-atock ‘banks, the sucoss of which depended ‘ona du mixture of special snd non-specal minds—of minds which atend to the means and ‘of minds which attend to the ead’ This contrast between busines. ‘ficiency and Bureaucracy was to become a standard one inthe ‘work of twentctnceatury conservative ideaogiss (oe chaptes 4). ‘Tt would be wrong to suppose that the high opinion Englishmen hud oftheir own administative system was simply a zeflection of insularity or jingoism. Te was a view shared by very many cont ‘ental scholars. From the standpoint ofa politcal scence (Staats ‘misenchft based in universes, German weiter atempted f0

    You might also like