MAX WEBER’S BUREAUCRACY

Max Weber’s work on bureaucracy, translated into English in 1946, was one of the major
contributions that have influenced the literature of public administration. He was the first
administrative thinker to have given considerable thought on Bureaucracy. Weber essentially
believed in inevitability of Bureaucracy in a modern state. He threw light not on ‘ideal
Bureaucracy’ but also highlighted on, ‘ideal type of Bureaucracy’. An efficient Bureaucracy is a
precondition of economic development. He knew that state alone possesses power, authority &
legitimacy. To him, Bureaucracy has power & authority. Bureaucrats are power elites. It consists
of superiors, technical experts having knowledge & experience. Max Weber viewed Bureaucracy
from organisational point of view. However he also described the qualities necessary for
Bureaucrats. His advocacy for, ‘impersonal approach’ has relevance even today. In a corporate
world of today, weber’s ideas are still considered valid.

FEATURES OF WEBER’S BUREAUCRACY

• Authority of hierarchy: Bureaucratic organisation is based upon a well-defined hierarchy.
Hierarchy, based on authority, has downward trends. Authority flows from upward to
downward. An organisation based upon hierarchy of authority.
• Division of Work: Bureaucratic organisation is divided between vertical & horizontal lines
for division of work & functional specialisation. Every employee in the organisation has a
well defined power & authority, based upon employee’s specialisation & expertise.
• Formal Rules & Regulation: This Bureaucratic organisation functions within a framework
of fixed rules & regulations. An employee, i.e. a Bureaucrat, has to function within this
framework of rules & regulations. Such a Bureaucratic organisation specifies the duties &
responsibilities of Bureaucrats. Authority implies responsibility. Every Bureaucratic
organisation functions with a specific procedure, laid down by the organisation. This
procedure is laid down for performing their functions.An employee in the organisation,
obeys the authority. The rules, regulations are practiced & obeyed by Bureaucrats. The
procedure of work is followed by employees.
• Formal Selection: The Bureaucrats should be properly & scientifically selected. This
enables efficiency of Bureaucracy. The Bureaucrats should be given periodic promotion on
the basis of their technical competence.
• Impersonality: One of the unique features, suggested by Weber, is the impersonal approach
of an employee, in the organisation. The interrelationship amongst the employees should be
based upon impersonal approach. Every employee should function with impersonal
approach, while performing duties.

CRITICISM OF WEBER’S BUREAUCRACY

Though noteworthy, Weber’s idea of Bureaucracy has been criticised on certain grounds. The
first point of criticism is that Weber laid too much importance on Bureaucracy. In fact, Weber
himself had not given a proper definition of Bureaucracy. It was, later on, regarded as a part of
social science. Weber gave more importance to organisational aspect of Bureaucracy. He did not

1
 MAX WEBER’S BUREAUCRACY
consider the political social contexts, in which Bureaucracy operates. Bureaucracy cannot
function independently without having consideration for social & political forces. Weber
associated power, authority & legitimacy with state / Bureaucracy. However, in a Democratic
state, Bureaucracy comes under the direct control of Executive. Weber underestimated the role
of legislatures, elected representatives, in exercising control over Bureaucracy. In the era of
privatisation, Liberalisation & globalisation, Government Bureaucracy, as advocated by Weber,
has less significance, rather than the times, when Weber wrote on Bureaucracy.

CONCLUSION
Max Weber’s theory of bureaucracy is advocated the system which is based on the standardised
procedures and a clear chain of command. This mean bureaucracy is the most efficient form of
organisation and well-defined line of authority with crystal clear rules and regulation which are
strictly followed. The entire theory of Weber’s bureaucracy is rationally designed to achieve
functional performance at all levels and every part of the bureaucracy should contribute to the
whole institution. However, the bureaucracy limits individual freedom and makes it difficult if
not impossible for individuals to understand their activities in relation to the organisation as a
whole. Therefore, bureaucracy applies to an organisation which is rigid and formally structure
with lot characteristics needed in order to run successfully.

2
 MAX WEBER’S BUREAUCRACY
The Weberian concept of bureaucracy was based on a sociological analysis which united in a
single frame of reference both political and organisational dimensions. The contributions of Max
Weber were in this respect by far the most outstanding.
He not only formulated his concept theoretically and established the connection of bureaucracy
as an administrative organisation with politics and society, but imparted to his technical
definition a degree of clarity and sophistication never attained before. In his technical definition
he was concerned exclusively with the mode of administration -and the type of administrators. It
had nothing to do with the pejorative aspect of bureaucratic administration” This is a commend-
able tribute to the Weberian model of bureaucracy. In fact, though Weber’s name is chiefly
associated with sociology, Weber and bureaucracy are both inseparable concepts.
David Held, a leftist-minded political scientist, says: “The notion that the states and bureaucratic
organisation in particular, constitute “parasitic” entities is a position Marx and many other
Marxists have espoused. Max Weber (1864- 1920), a founder of sociology, a champion of
European liberalism and of the German nation-state, contested this view. Although he drew
extensively upon Marx’s writings, he did so critically and nowhere more critically perhaps than
with reference to the modern state. In contrast to Marx, Engels and Lenin, Weber resisted all
suggestion that forms of state organisation were parasitic and a direct product of the activities of
classes. He stressed the similarities between private and public organisations as well as their
independent dynamics”.
Max Weber died in 1920 immediately after the First World War (1914-1918) and it is strongly
believed by a section of intellectuals that this war put certain indelible marks upon his mind for
one reason or other. Weber could not accept the illiberal thought and actions of several European
leaders. Weber shared the general conviction of the leaders of the German liberal bourgeois that
constitutional monarchy was the most acceptable model from the view point of political
succession, legitimacy and implementations of the imperialist policy of the strong state. The
political and economic condition of Germany in the first two decades of the twentieth century
was precarious and that situation forced Weber to think of a powerful German State.
What he called “strong state” and believed that for a strong state a strong or able administration
was required and a well-built bureaucracy could provide this. Though Weber was liberal-minded
he strongly advocated for a constitutional monarchy because this type of government was
established in Britain. He observed that British monarchy did not stand on the way of progress of
democracy. Weber thought that, for any form of government, administration was indispensable
and bureaucracy is, again, indispensable for running the administration.
Weber’s Theory of Bureaucracy:
Weber was not in favour of democracy in its direct form or category. He favoured constitutional
monarchy. In this type of government the domination of the state or government over the people
is beyond any question. There may exist parliament, council of ministers so and so.’ The power
and authority of monarch over the people was unquestionable. But the domination or
unquestionable authority cannot be exercised without a strong administrative apparatus and that

3
 MAX WEBER’S BUREAUCRACY
constitutes the central issue of Weberian theory of bureaucracy. Who will run the powerful
administrative system?
After a good deal of thought Weber arrived at the conclusion that a well-trained administrative
staff must be built-up. This is Weberian bureaucracy. This administrative staff must have both
legitimacy and power. The government will exercise its domination over the great multitude of
men through the administrative staff and people cannot object because this body has legitimacy.
Weber argued for a strong type of bureaucracy for another reason. He observed that the
administrative structure of European states was becoming more and more complex and it could
not be run by ordinary persons.
The basis of Weber’s theory of state is to be found in Marx, Engels and Lenin’s concept of state.
Marx and Engels talked about the “withering away” of state and Lenin gave a call to “smash” the
bourgeois state. Weber did not accept any of these ideas of state. He had a different idea and
definition of modern state. In his opinion, a modern state is a territorial state with the monopoly
use of coercive power. A territorial state must have a definite geographical boundary and clear
administrative system with the help of which it can use the coercive power whenever necessity
arises. So territoriality and clear administration are, according to Weber, the key elements of
modern state.
But Weber did not stop here. He tells us of another important element which a modern state must
possess and this is legitimacy. When the state uses coercive power it must prove or establish that
it has legitimate authority to do so. He legitimised the use of force through the bureaucracy.
Bureaucracy means administration and this is an indispensable part of any modern state. Weber
viewed bureaucracy in his light.
Hence, in the opinion of Weber, modern state, territoriality, legitimacy and coercive power-all
are within a single bracket. If there is no well- built bureaucracy the management of a modern
state will simply be an impossibility. Weber has said that the legitimacy is the foundation of
modern state and this generally operates through the institution of bureaucracy Explaining the
view of Weber, David Held says: “The legitimacy of the modern state is founded predominantly
on legal authority that is the commitment to a code of legal regulations”
Features of Weber’s Bureaucracy:
The following features of Weber’s theory of bureaucracy can be stated in the following
way:
(1) First feature is there is clear hierarchy in the whole structure of bureaucracy. Experience,
educational, qualifications, seniority and several other factors determine the status and position
of a person. However, seniority and experience are very important determinants.
(2) Every bureaucrat performs his duty in accordance with law. No other factor except law
determines the duty or course of activities. That is why it is generally said that bureaucrats have
undiluted attachment to law and rules. People’s interest or general welfare of society are
secondary considerations to a bureaucrat.
(3) Weber has said that after Industrial Revolution and development of capitalism the
bureaucratic system has enormously developed and, at the same time, there has arisen a clear

4
 MAX WEBER’S BUREAUCRACY
distinction between private and state bureaucracy. In some cases the private bureaucracy enjoys
some freedom. But on the other hand the state bureaucracy is guided by written and specific law
and for that reason (there may be other reasons also) the state bureaucracy is rigid.
(4) Weber has argued for bureaucracy on the ground that the alternative to bureaucratic system is
dictatorship. He is of opinion that in modern state system bureaucracy is “completely
indispensable”. The choice is between bureaucracy and dilettantism in the field of administration
(5) Weber says that bureaucracy invariably possesses technical superiority. Let us quote him:
“The decisive reason for the advance of bureaucratic organisation has always been its purely
technical superiority over any other form of organisation. The fully developed bureaucratic
apparatus compares with the non- mechanical modes of production.” —quoted by Held.
(6) Weber has suggested a relationship between state, growth of capitalism and bureaucracy. He
observes that the modern state was created or came into existence long before the advent of
capitalism. Where there was a state there was administration but it was not bureaucracy. The fact
is that modern state system promoted the growth of capitalism. Capitalism slowly came to
control the state system and it felt that there must exist a centralised state administration and this
is bureaucracy. So we find that there is a fine and good relationship between modern state,
capitalism, and bureaucracy. The real reason is capitalism wanted to use the structure of modern
state through a good, efficient and reliable administrative system and the stalwarts of capitalism
found that efficient and trained persons could serve this purpose properly.
(7) If we look at the bureaucratic structures of different countries we shall find that the
bureaucracy possesses certain special privileges. For example, every bureaucrat has a pay
structure, he has to retire at the attainment of certain age, after retirement he gets pension and
other benefits. He cannot be easily removed from his office or post without gross negligence of
duty or corruption. Even these must be proved properly.
(8) The bureaucrats are accountable to administration, to law and higher authority but not to the
general public. They are not bound to give explanation for any policy or for any lapses. If they
are to give any explanation they can do it to their higher authority.
(9) The bureaucrats generally have no political preference or view. They may have but they
cannot express it publicly. In a word, they are politically neutral.
Bureaucracy: A Legal Form:
Weber divides authority into three types: charismatic, traditional, and legal. He observed that in
many countries of contemporary Europe there were these three forms of authority. Some people
have been found to exercise authority simply by virtue of certain qualities. The person by virtue
of this quality influences people and exercise authority over them. But there is no legal basis of
this authority.
There is traditional authority. In many backward and tribal areas the type of traditional authority
is found. People have trust upon a person or group of persons and people, generation after
generation, obey the leader or his successor. But the traditional authority has no legal
background.

5
 MAX WEBER’S BUREAUCRACY
Finally, there is found a legal authority, it is most prominent and most important. Weber
considered the legal authority as the most prominent and acceptable. In every modern state legal
authority is to be found. He also considered the legal authority as the most rational.
To him bureaucracy was legal and rational because of several reasons. Some are:
(1) In any country where there is bureaucracy (in every state of modern time there is
bureaucracy), it is legally constituted.
(2) There are systems of selection through open and competitive examination, after selection the
selected persons are given training and, finally, after the completion of training they are
appointed. In the entire process there is no sort of interference of any other person or authority.
Parliament enacts laws for the appointment, examination etc. of the officers. The promotion,
retirement, again, are fully controlled or determined by law. Even in different departments of
state administration there are departmental rules that guide everything of bureaucrats. Every
bureaucrat is controlled or guided by general rules and departmental rules. The sources of
authority of an officer are rules and these are very often changed or amended to cope with the
situation. This change must also be in accordance with law.
All the bureaucrats are bound to obey two things —one is the direction of higher authority and
the other is the law. The consequences of this type of obedience cannot be the look-out of any
bureaucrat. So obedience is a fundamental aspect of modern and legal bureaucracy. A bureaucrat
can be punished for any violation of law but not for his failure to show accountability to public
interest.
This legal status of bureaucracy has converted it to be a type of corporate body. BB Mishra in his
article (noted earlier) makes the following observation: “The person who obeys the authority
does so in his capacity as a member of the corporate group and what he obeys is only law.
The members of the corporate group do not owe their obedience to him as an individual, but to
the impersonal order. In other words there is-an obligation to obedience only within the sphere of
rationally delimited authority which, in terms of the order, has been conferred upon him” The
Weberian bureaucracy has treated it not only as rational and legal but also impersonal. His
assessment reveals that a bureaucrat devotes his time and energy to the cause of administration
just like a machine or legal agent of state administration.
Bureaucracy: An Ideal Type:
In his Economy and Society Weber says that bureaucracy is absolutely indispensable for modern
system of public administration. This indispensability, some scholars think, makes it an ideal
type, or the opposite may be correct. Since’ among all forms, bureaucracy is the best form of
administration it may be categorised as an ideal form of administration. According to Weber, of
all forms of authority, bureaucracy is the only type which is legal and rational. No other form of
authority (charismatic and traditional) is legitimate. Bureaucracy is established and discharges its
functions according to law. Division of duty, posting, salary, promotion, in case of demotion,
retirement, transfer, pension and pensionary benefits-all are done in accordance with law framed
either by legislature or any other competent authority. All these processes have built up the
foundation of the ideal type.

6
 MAX WEBER’S BUREAUCRACY
The sources of bureaucratic authority are the well-built legal system. A bureaucrat does his duty
what the law permits him to do the task. Naturally, such a type of government can be called ideal
type. In bureaucracy there is a clear system of hierarchy which means everyone can get the
opportunity if he possesses requisite qualification of promotion to higher rank or position.
There are several rational and legal principles that guide or control the bureaucratic
administration. One such principle is the entire work of public administration is divided among
the employees and there is sufficient rationality in this division of work. In old days (that is
before the introduction of bureaucratic form of administration) the administrative officers were
chosen by the king or any other person without considering the quality or ability. But the
bureaucracy is completely different. I have already thrown light on the selection or appointment
process of bureaucrats.
The selection process is stiff and complicated. The bureaucrats are well-educated because the
authority prescribes a minimum qualification for the job of an administrator. After lection the
candidates must undergo strict training process. The bureaucrats have no scope to act
whimsically. Every act of theirs must be supported by law.
Weber calls bureaucracy ideal type still for another reason. Even the supreme head or authority
of administration is guided or ruled by law and he passes through rigorous training. In order to
hold a key position in the administrative system a person must establish his capability beyond all
sorts of doubt. In the Weberian system of bureaucracy there is hardly any scope of nepotism or
personal preference or non-preference. Explaining Weber’s view BB Mishra says: The whole
administrative staff under the supreme authority consisted of individual appointed officials.
These officials were personally free and subject to authority only in respect of impersonal
official obligations”.
The bureaucracy is governed by strict rules and systematic discipline. Weber has emphasised this
aspect of discipline because for a well- managed administration discipline is an essential
condition. A few words may be said about hierarchy. Hierarchy not only facilitates
administration it also meets the demand of an officer for his efficiency. A senior officer can
definitely claim higher rank and suitable position. The system of hierarchy meets those demands.
In parliamentary form of government the bureaucracy has a special importance. After the general
election when government in power, if defeated, leaves office and new government comes to
power. In between the two there is a gap and this gap cannot create any vacuum in administration
due to bureaucracy. In other words, the continuity in administration is maintained by
bureaucracy. This is a very important aspect of bureaucracy and this can be cited as an influential
cause of why it is an ideal type.
We have already mentioned that decision-making constitutes a very crucial part of administration
and this, in democracy is taken by the “political executives”. But the real leadership is given, in
this respect, by the bureaucrats because of their efficiency and knowledge of administration.
Needless to say that these two are essential elements of policy-making process.
A policy, we know, finally goes in the name of a minister but the elements essential for a policy
are supplied by the bureaucrats. An experienced and efficient bureaucrat can guide a minister in

7
 MAX WEBER’S BUREAUCRACY
the proper way. It is believed that if there were no bureaucracy the policymaking would have
been adversely affected.
Nicholas Henry says: “To Weber, an impersonal, rule abiding, efficient, merit based career
service provided the surest way of fulfilling the public interest in the face of politically
fragmented Germany and an arrogant, powerful, yet somewhat silly junker class”. Henry says
that Weber had personal experience about the miserable situation in administrative system of
Germany and he, for that reason, arrived at the conclusion that a strong bureaucracy is the only
remedy to that situation.
Ideal Type: A Controversy:
Weber called bureaucracy an ideal type for proper and efficient administration. But many people
have raised their eyebrows on this typical suggestion. The critics say that Weber’s bureaucracy is
just like a type of administrative structure. But Nicos P. Mouzelis in his article The Ideal Type of
Bureaucracy has given some replies to these criticisms. The critics say that the ideal type does
not focus on the other crucial aspects of organisational reality; for example informal
organisation, dysfunctional consequence etc.
Mouzelis has replied that if Weber were alive he would have replied to this criticism in the
following way: “It was not his intention to construct a model bureaucracy, which would
approach as much as possible to concrete reality. Rather, he tried to identify the administrative
characteristics typical of a certain kind of organisation”.
Weber built up his theory of bureaucracy in the background of post-Industrial Revolution
scenario of Europe. Moreover, he had personal experience of the topsy-turvy situation in the
administrative system of his contemporary Germany. He thought that a well-built administrative
structure could have saved Germany from this situation. He was again a prominent sociologist
and he built up the theory of bureaucracy in the light of sociology. He divided authority into —
charismatic, traditional, and rational or legal.
This division is, again, not imaginary at all. He observed that in many developed capitalist
countries of his time there was a bureaucratic system and the countries having this system are
well-administered. Naturally we can say that he had personal knowledge behind the analysis of
bureaucracy. Mouzelis in his article claims that most probably Weber used the term ideal type in
a special or restricted sense. Mouzelis says, “When one speaks of the ideal type of bureaucracy,
there is certainly no implication of a typical bureaucracy in the same sense in which we would
speak of an average firm or a typical student”.
In other words, Weber’s ideal bureaucracy does not mean a special type of bureaucracy. For the
administration of a developed capitalist state a better and well-trained administrative staff is
indispensable and in Weber’s view this staff shall possess certain qualities. This is the ideal type
bureaucracy.
The administrative class that possesses the qualities may reasonably be called ideal bureaucracy
Mouzelis further maintains that it is a “simple type” of administration. The ideal type does not
possess certain special characteristics which are always fixed, under special circumstances few
qualities are suggested that make bureaucracy an ideal type.

8
 MAX WEBER’S BUREAUCRACY
Under special circumstances when a bureaucratic structure performs certain functions which are
normally not possible for any other administrative organisation it will be called ideal type and
Weber used the phrase in that sense Supporting Weber’s stand Mouzelis says that he did not
mean this type of bureaucracy as “an extreme type”. Mouzelis says-“Weber’s construct, more
than a classificatory or an ordering type, was meant to be an analytic tool contributing directly to
the explanation and interpretation of social phenomena” He did not treat his ideal type
bureaucracy as a “theoretical model”. Mouzelis’s assessment of Weberian bureaucracy is to
some extent controversial.
Other Aspects of Bureaucracy:
Weberian bureaucratic model is so comprehensive that it cannot be expressed laconically. In
other words, it encompasses various aspects of a modern capitalist state. He has asserted that
bureaucracy is by far the most efficient form or structure of administration. He claims that he has
observed various forms of administration from various angles and has arrived at the conclusion
that it is not only efficient it is also the most rational type of administration. For a capitalist state
no other form of administration is more suitable than this.
Weber highly speaks of this type of bureaucratic administration. Let us quote him liberally, “The
decisive reason for the advance of bureaucratic organisation has always been its purely technical
superiority over any other form of organisation. The fully developed bureaucratic apparatus
compares with the non-mechanical modes of production. Precision, speed, unambiguity,
knowledge of the files continuity, discretion, unity, strict subordination, reduction of friction and
of material and personal costs these are raised to the optimum point in the strictly bureaucratic
administration-Economy and Society”. Weber attributes a number of qualities to his bureaucratic
model. No other type of administration can be compared with the bureaucratic system. Weber
has attributed a large number of qualities to his bureaucratic model.
According to Weber, bureaucracy is superior to any other form in precision, m stability, in the
stringency of its discipline and its reliability. These are the qualities of a developed system of
administration. He also says that bureaucracy is a stable form of administration. Both the
executive and legislative organs of government change, but once an officer is appointed his
services cannot be terminated without certain rules. In this sense it enjoys stability.
In a modern state bureaucracy enjoys a special position. The structure of a modern state is
complex and its purposes are quite varied. Though Robert Nozick and some other thinkers
thought of a minimal state in reality, the functions of today state are not confined within
maintenance of law and order. Faced with the growing demand from people the state authority is
forced to launch welfare activities and the burden falls upon the public administration at the
centre of which stays bureaucracy.
The success or failure of the government depends upon the efficiency and other qualities of
bureaucracy. So bureaucracy is not simply an instrument of public administration it is the most
competent authority which helps the popular government in the realisation of promises the
representative gives to the electorate on the eve of election.

9
 MAX WEBER’S BUREAUCRACY
In the second half of last century large number of countries started to nationalise the key or very
important industries as a means of rapid industrialisation. But simple nationalisation is not a
panacea of all evils. A nationalised industry can achieve success only when its top management
is efficient and has specialisation as well as capability. Only a well-structured bureaucracy can
claim high class efficiency in management. So we conclude that even for a socialised state or a
socialist regime there is a great need of bureaucracy. The best example is the administration of
former Soviet Union.
We have so far discussed mainly the technical aspect of bureaucracy which implies that in a
modern state the whole administration is run by a group of persons who are specially trained and
have been made suitable for running the complex administration. But there is a another aspect
which is even more important than the former. It is the political aspect of bureaucracy. It both
administers and rules. In real terms the bureaucracy need not be a part of political department.
But the mere fact is that in a democratic system elections are held periodically and after every
election a new set of persons comes to power.
These persons have very little experience in running the administration and policymaking. These
persons are to depend upon the bureaucrats. The ministers for obvious reasons very often take
political decisions, but the materials for making such types of decisions are furnished by the
bureaucrats. Gradually the bureaucrats become part and parcel of political affairs of the state at
the head of which there are ministers. In other words, the bureaucrats are politicised and this is
practically unavoidable.
The personal relationship between a political man and the technical man makes the latter
political-minded. Whether this is desirable or not is a different issue. The practical situation says
that a technical man becomes a political man. Even when the political situation changes, the
technical man along with his political ideas remains in power. In several cases, the change of
political regimes forces the bureaucrat to change his previous political leanings. However, this
picture is not rare.
Criticisms of Weber’s Theory:
Weber’s theory of bureaucracy suffers from certain limitations and some of these are:
(1) He assumes that the development of bureaucracy leads to the enhancement of power of the
persons who are at the upper echelons of bureaucratic structure. But David Held offers us an
opposite and at the same time real picture. Held says “In modern bureaucratic systems there
appear to be considerable openings for those in formally subordinate positions to acquire or
regain control over their organisational tasks”.
Let us explain the situation. The chief executive officers by virtue of their position, are supposed
to be powerful but in practice it has been found that the officers subordinate to the head exercise
more power. So it is not always correct to say that the top bureaucrats are all- powerful. An
ordinary clerk can manipulate the situation.
(2) Weber has analysed various aspects and development of bureaucracy in general terms. But he
did not pay any attention to bureaucracy that is found in other political spheres. Experience
teaches us that generally a bureaucratic structure is formed in the background of socio-economic-

10
 MAX WEBER’S BUREAUCRACY
political atmosphere. The bureaucratic structures of all political systems are not similar and can
never be similar. It is a drawback of Weberian theory of bureaucracy.
(3) David Held has pointed out another defect of Weber’s theory. He says that Weber has failed
to include the impact of cultural, economic and technological forces upon the working of
bureaucracy Today there is found an unprecedented growth of technology and the bureaucracy is
not free from its influence. In fact, there is a clear difference between Weberian bureaucracy and
today’s bureaucracy. This is no doubt a clear shortcoming of Weber’s bureaucratic theory. Today
there is bureaucratic system in every country. But the bureaucratic structures of all countries are
not uniform or same. Held says that Weber failed to foresee the process or growth of
bureaucracy in several states.
(4) Kriager in his Understanding Capitalism has said that bureaucracy had developed in several
countries of Europe. In some instances that development was not prominent, but there was this
type of administration. Moreover, he did not mention these developments in his analysis of
bureaucracy which is to be found in his Economy and Society. It is true that the advent of
bureaucracy and its progress have become spectacular after the birth and rapid growth of
capitalism. But its existence before capitalism cannot be denied. Kriager laments this
shortcoming of Weberian analysis.
(5) Nigro and Nigro in their’ Modern Public Administration have made the following
observation: “Weber’s analysis has been criticised as empirically incomplete, especially with
regard to the behavioural or social psychological dynamics of life within bureaucracies” The
point is Weberian theory cannot meet the demands of empirical tests and analysis. Weberian
theory is a model but it is not a single model. There are other models. Again, one critic, further
says, that every model, in order to be an ideal model, must be tested by facts and data. It is quite
unfortunate that Weber has not done this. Because of this his model or theory remains an
incomplete one.
(6) The critics further say that the Weberian model can be characterised as a machine theory and
Nicholas Henry is of opinion that Weber’s theory falls in the closed model of organisation. But
the impact of globalisation and liberalisation has changed the nature’ of social sciences. No
branch of social science can claim that it remains outside the influence of globalisation and
liberalisation. Naturally bureaucracy cannot claim that it will remain outside the present world
system. Here lies the important drawback of Weber’s theory of bureaucracy.
(7) Alan Ball and Peters say—”Bureaucracy has negative connotation for most citizens it implies
inefficiency, rigidity, impersonal rules. Unexplained decisions and a host of other forms of
maladministration” There is considerable reason in this observation. In some cases it has been
able to establish its merit and efficiency but not in all instances. In developing nations or
prismatic societies the role of bureaucracy is not beyond doubt. The bureaucracy, in these cases,
do not always work for general public but for the elite groups or pressure groups. Even in USA
the bureaucracy has been found to look after the interests of capitalist class.
(8) The inordinate love for law makes Weberian bureaucracy a curse for social progress. All of
us must make it a point that we will obey law, but excessive love for law and to neglect real

11
 MAX WEBER’S BUREAUCRACY
situation or human factor cannot be accepted. Weberian theory of bureaucracy is accused of its
partiality for law. Humanity and the genuine cause of people have been forced to take a back-
seat. It appears to us that Weber’s model takes it for granted that man is made for law, but law is
not made for man. In other words, law is all in all. This has faced challenge.
(9) The Weberian model has been criticised as mechanical. The picture of bureaucracy depicted
by Weber is just like a machine. But in practical situation it is not so. Bureaucracy is to adjust
with realities of society and when it does so the mechanical character comes to be secondary. If
bureaucracy fails to adjust itself with the real situation, critics observe, it will ultimately be
dysfunctional. So we conclude that bureaucracy is not always mechanical.
(10) Blau and Scott in their Formal Organisation: A Comparative Approach, are of opinion that
the model of Weber cannot be regarded as ideal. In the industrialised nations of the West the
existence of Weberian model can be found, but in the developing nations of Asia and Africa it is
very difficult to find out the existence of Weberian model of bureaucracy. The two critics have
said: He does not characterise the average administrative organisation, rather he seeks to bring
together these characteristics that are distinctive of this type. The authors have cited an example.
A physician may imagine a healthy and beautiful person who has no ailment at all but in real
world there is no existence of such a person. Weber imagined of an ideal bureaucracy. But such
type is nonexistent. Here lies chief fault.
(11) The above two authors have further maintained that it is an admixture of conceptual scheme
and a set of hypotheses. The two authors continue: “Such conceptual schemes provide important
frameworks for analysis and research although they themselves are not subject to empirical
testing. They are neither correct nor incorrect, only more or less useful investigations.” The mere
fact is that Weber’s model is neither correct nor incorrect.
(12) There is another dark side in Weber’s model of bureaucracy. This model fully supports the
meritocracy. Many persons do not approve that this Weberian model is out and out hierarchical.
Experienced, expert and efficient bureaucrats are always to be rewarded. This is admissible. But
it is not correct to say that everyone will be efficient. Efficiency is a gift given by God or nature.
Again, favourable circumstances make a person efficient. It is unfortunate that Weber did not
take note of this real situation. He failed to see that if meritocracy wins in all cases there may
arise dissensions in the whole administrative structure of a state. From history we come to know
that this happens. In Weber’s time and even today there were and are conflicts among various
sections or departments of public administration. For pretty long time the American blacks could
not enjoy any opportunity to participate in top administrative system of America.
Subsequently the blacks had to fight to achieve their legitimate right. In many countries qualified
and able women were not allowed to participate in top administration. They had to fight to have
this right and that was possible because of long struggle led by women’s organisations popularly
known as feminism that started in the fifties of the last century. Even today there is glaring
disparity in the distribution of plum administrative posts equitably among men and women.
Weber’s model is silent. Critics say that Weber was quite aware of it but he did not raise his
voice. These are the main drawbacks of Weberian model of bureaucracy.

12
 MAX WEBER’S BUREAUCRACY
Assessment:
We have criticised Weber’s model of bureaucracy from standpoints more than one. But it would
be a wrong conclusion if we assume that his model is defective from top to bottom. S.M. Lipset
in his Political Man writes: “Weber gave great importance to the integrative aspects of
bureaucratisation in a democratic society such as the transfer to the entire society of the
bureaucratic standards of equal treatment before the law and before authority and the use of
achievement criteria for selection and promotion.” The Weberian model accorded an integrative
character to bureaucracy or public officials. Before him nobody made any attempt in this sector.
Weber prepared his model of bureaucracy in the light of capitalism that he observed in his time.
But this can never be regarded as his fault. Today in large number of developing nations major
aspects of Weberian model are to be found. Some portions or aspects of his model have been
amended or changed to suit the situation. But the main features still remain.
Blau and Scott have criticised his model. But these two authors have not forgot to take note of
the contribution made by Weber. Let us see what Blau and Scott say: “Weber’s pioneering
analysis of bureaucracy has stimulated much further analysis and research in formal organisation
and these studies make it possible critically to review and to refine some of his theoretical
concepts.” We believe that Weber’s theory has large amount of relevance in parliamentary
system of government where ministers are not well-acquainted with administration.

13