Table of Contents

Introduction........................................................................................................2

Research Framework.........................................................................................6

Statement of Problem.....................................................................................6

Review of Literature......................................................................................6

Hypothesis.......................................................................................................7

Research Methodology...................................................................................7

Objectives of Study.........................................................................................7

Research Questions........................................................................................7

Theoretical Background....................................................................................8

Critical Appraisal...............................................................................................9

Bureaucracy and its Sociological Bases..........................................................10

Economic Factors.............................................................................................10

Social Factors....................................................................................................11

Political Factors................................................................................................12

Max Weber Theory on Bureaucracy..............................................................14

Utopian Bureaucracy.......................................................................................17

Suggestions........................................................................................................20

Conclusion & Discussion of Hypothesis.........................................................21

Bibliography......................................................................................................22

Page 1 of 21
Page 2 of 21
 Introduction
bureaucracy 
/byʊˈrɑkrəsi/
“a system of government in which there are a large number of state officials who are not
elected; a country with such a system”

The President or the head of state are charged with exercising power over its citizens to gov-
ern and maintain the law. Although overseen by this one elected head, many others like civil
servants also play an active role in decision making and carrying out major functions of the
state. These civil servants or other government officials are often appointed and not elected.
Naturally, as a result of their omnipresence in all spheres of the government they influence a
society in many ways. Having said that, the bureaucratic set up of a society is also heavily in-
fluenced by the society. Education, family structure, socio-cultural attitudes of people etc. are
some of the prominent variables that influence the bureaucratic developments in a society.

For example, through the Government of India Act, 1858, the British gained complete control
of governance in India. This introduction of bureaucracy in India not only led to ‘civilising’
of a society the britishers believed to be primitive but also a creation of a new class of elites
within Indians. Furthermore, the access to resources to become a civil servant in that period
was limited, reflecting the class, caste and gender divide of this time. This understanding of
civil service as ‘elite’ persists even today. These perceptions that have negligibly evolved
from the British period has also cultivated a culture of master-slave work relationship within
bureaucracies. Robert V. Presthus in his paper ‘The Social Bases of Bureaucratic Organisa-
tion’ also states how bureaucratic organisations are a reflection of socio-cultural values of the
society—

“In part this may reflect a patriarchal family structure that prepares the individual for
a submissive role in which his superiors may appear as a succession of ‘fathers’.”1

1 Presthus, Robert V., ‘The Social Bases of Bureaucratic Organization.’ [1959] Social Forces, vol. 38, no. 2,
Oxford University Press.

Page 3 of 21
One of the first public bodies to resemble a bureaucracy was in China around 186 B.C. where
in recruitments were done through competitive exams. Hence, it is incorrect to say
bureaucracy itself is a modern concept. However, over the years, its constitution has
drastically changed. At the same time, even through various transformations of political
systems, bureaucracy is perhaps one of the most constant institutions in any society. In a
democracy or an authoritarian state, bureaucracy remains equally relevant and essential to
perform state functions. In many ways it is a state tool of control. Having said that, the
outcome of bureaucratic activities are not same in different societies. In fact, it is often very
contrasting. The state’s use of bureaucracy to reign power, the upper class persons that alter
the intended outcome to suit themselves etc. leads to a very complicated effect of
bureaucracy consisting of several layers. When such variables interact with each other, the
decision making mechanisms is greatly impacted. For example, economic justifications can
often be found for corruption in the system. Additionally, experiments in the Hawthrone
studies in the 1920s and 1930s, one of the best in sociological literature reveals the effect of
working conditions on productivity and efficiency. In many ways this can be extrapolated to
roughly suppose the worker loyalty. Apart from workers’s behaviour, it is also crucial to
analyse organisations behaviour to answer why there is a particular attitude towards
recruitment, reward, objectives etc. Although corruption can be given economic justifications
universally, socio-political behaviours effects the cause and effect of corruption at a
rudimentary level.

The Max Weber theory on bureaucracy provides a conceptual guideline to achieve what he
calls a professionalized, legal-rational bureaucracy. He also suggests that such irrationalities
in behaviour and corruptions is mostly a result of ‘primitiveness’ and ‘orthodoxy’ of the
public administration system. He also believed bureaucracy to be superior to other
administrative forms and viewed its efficiency to be related to rationality. Therefore, upon
modernisation these inadequacies will eventually come to an end. But often it is seen that
despite attempts to rationalise the selection process and functioning of bureaucracies
corruption, favouritism and other such vices do not appear to be gone. The fact that
bureaucracies or any institution is very intrinsically reflective of the societal conditions can
perhaps, explain why it is not possible to avoid such influences completely. The suggestions
of Max Weber for example, suggests an idea, best occurring in a utopian society where the
society itself is completely rid of all the flaws it seeks to see the bureaucracy be rid of.

Page 4 of 21
 ‘Rational action as Weber defines it involves choosing and organising the most
appropriate means available for the achievement of a goal.’2

This can be explained as, logical progression or revision of methods— means, to increasingly
entail technical knowledge, that prescribes criteria for functioning and takes control of
decision making process in all areas of society, such that there is deliberate avoidance of any
irrationality resulting from the belief that it causes intrusion on making and implementing the
most appropriate decisions. As is further explained in the article cited above, bureaucracy
strongly represents the social perception of rationality by attempting to separate state heads,
politics, beliefs and ideological differences from essential administrative functions. And such
impersonalisation is believed to behold independence from irrationality and aids efficiency
and effectiveness. Weber (1946:214-6) writes,

“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. . .Bureaucracy offers the attitudes demanded by the external apparatus
of modern culture in the most favourable combination.”3

However, an analysis of the practice provides a different picture. Despite the practice of such
concepts, irrationality persists in different ways. This is not to say that bureaucracy itself is a
fallacious institution. The argument here is that, it is not possible to attain complete, utopian
level of rationality because bureaucracy is a social institution effected by sociological factors
as much as any other.

Now, considering such sociological factors influence selections in bureaucracy, there are lim-
itations to objectivity and rationality in the process of selection and functioning that may of-
ten result in corruption, favouritism, nepotism etc. The subsequent project will focus on
studying the same, specifically in relation to the Max Weber theory.

2 Hearn, Francis., ‘Rationality and Bureaucracy: Maoist Contributions to a Marxist Theory of Bureaucracy.’
[1978] The Sociological Quarterly, vol. 19, no. 1, Midwest Sociological Society, Wiley
3 Supra note 2.

Page 5 of 21
 Research Framework

Statement of Problem
Various factors effect bureaucratic developments and their set-up. This can have an effect on
the objectivity and rationality in the manner bureaucracies function. One of the outcomes of
this being, corruption. Thus, there is a cause-effect relationship between bureaucratic ratio-
nality that is directly influenced by sociological factors, and corruption. The subsequent
project will focus on determining the extent and consequences of this.

Review of Literature
1. Max Weber and the Analysis of Modern Bureaucratic Organization: Notes toward a
Theory of Appraisal- Author(s): Lutzker, Michael A— The paper provides an in-
depth analysis of the Max Weber theory on bureaucracy. It does a critical appreciation of
the said theory by studying real life implications of the same.
2. The Social Bases of Bureaucratic Organisation- Author(s): Robert V. Presthus—
This paper, published by the Oxford University Press provides extensive data and re-
search explaining the said social bases in relation to bureaucracies.
3. “Max Weber, Bureaucracy, and Corruption.” The Good Cause: Theoretical Per-
spectives on Corruption- Author(s): Rubinstein, William D., and Patrick von
Maravic., edited by Gjalt de Graaf et al.— This article was crucial in developing a
link between bureaucracy, rationality and resulting corruption.
4. Rationality and Bureaucracy: Maoist Contributions to a Marxist Theory of Bureau-
cracy- Author(s): Hearn, Francis— This material aided in defining rationality for the
purpose of the project and lay a foundation on what should be counted as rational or irra-
tional by understanding the scope of the idea and its application in other theories.
5. “Bureaucracy” and “Rationality” in Weber's Organization Theory: An Empirical
Study- Author(s): Stanley H. Udy, Jr.— This article was referred to understand the
fundamental variables effecting behaviours in bureaucratic institutions and their implica-
tions.

Page 6 of 21
 Hypothesis
Complete rationalisation of behaviour in bureaucracy is not possible. However, it is possible
to mitigate corruption to an extent, depending on the sociological factors.

Research Methodology
Descriptive, analytical research was used as the method of study for the purpose of this
project. Existing research and case studies were studied and explored to analyse and supple-
ment the conclusions drawn.

Objectives of Study
6. To study the sociological factors affecting bureaucracy in a state.
7. To determine the rationality in the functioning of bureaucracies, considering sociological
factors heavily influence the said organisation.
8. To analyse the consequences of such sociological variables with special focus on corrup-
tion as its effect.
9. To explore possible ways to mitigate this effect and truly achieve the goals of bureau-
cracy.

Research Questions
10. What is the relationship between sociology and bureaucracy as an organisation of the so-
ciety?
11. What is the effect on objectivity and rationality in functioning of bureaucracy as a result
of sociological influences?
12. Can economic factors alone justify corruption?
13. Is it possible to truly achieve the goals of bureaucracy?

Theoretical Background

Page 7 of 21
Bureaucracy is omnipresent. Every citizen at some point has to associate with it. But percep-
tions of bureaucratic organisations range from being a status symbol to being used to refer to
any unnecessarily slow process for mockery. Given the sheer significance of this to a coun-
try’s smooth functioning, many sociologists, theorists and political scientists have attempted
to decipher its uniqueness— its consistent relevance while being heavily influenced by the
society. At the same time, they have also tried to justify and rationalise its functioning. Nev-
ertheless, it has not truly actualised, resulting in several follies within the system.

Since society is multi-dimensional, no one factor can be supposed to cause bureaucracy’s at-
tributes.Given these facts, I would like to attempt to analyse the reason for its indispensable
nature with a sociological perspective, and specially focus on corruption in bureaucracy,
along with attempting to understand the true reasons for such chronic behaviour.

Critical Appraisal
The articles I referred to for the purpose of this project provide a deep understanding of the
subject matter. Despite their extensive research and data, for this study, they do not provide a

Page 8 of 21
lot of material to analyse in isolation. Discussions of multiple papers were read together,
carefully and multiple times to come up with ideas to elaborately write here. There is, how-
ever gap in understanding to answer crucial question on the matter. For example— practical-
ity of the suggested ideas, can they be executed with intended outcomes? This is the question
that this paper seeks to answer.

It is also necessary to undergo research to come up with real life cases to study. This was not
available in the papers mentioned above. However, to truly fulfil the objectives of this study
and answer the research questions satisfactorily, it was important explore real life event, more
often the recent ones which was done with thorough readings from other databases and jour-
nals.

Bureaucracy and its Sociological Bases

Sociological factors, in simple terms are the social conditions that effect human behaviour.
This includes economic, social, political factors. Religious, ethnic, nationalities have a huge
impact on the bureaucratic constitution and decision making processes. Each of these factors
will be explore individually to derive an appropriate understanding of bureaucracy as a social
concept.

Page 9 of 21
Economic Factors

Sociology and economics, while both attempt to study human behaviours are two different
disciples that greatly interact to consequently result in certain outcomes. The two share many
concerns to understand and explain cause and effect of inequality, discrimination, education
and occupation. While studying this in relation to bureaucracy, the effect is seen in terms of
the living standards of persons directly and indirectly associated with bureaucratic organisa-
tions. This can be seen while looking into bureaucratic corruption. Evidence of this exists in
nearly all societies, at all stages of economic development and in all political systems. How-
ever, several studies suggests that the frequency of such events, and the subsequent reaction
to this varies very differently according to the society’s economic status. Recent studies (e.g.,
Mauro 1995)4 reveal that poverty ridden countries are more likely to be vulnerable to bureau-
cratic corruption than rich countries like Switzerland, Canada and the United States. This is
perhaps explained by the fact that a country with less economic development is likely to suf-
fer inefficiencies in terms of how the public administration is constituted and, how such em-
ployees are treated. As the Hawthrone effect suggested, worker satisfaction is correlated with
their functioning. 5 Furthermore, it is also understood that poverty increases the likelihood of
corruption which in turn restricts economic growth that results in any attempt to mitigate
poverty, fruitless.
“The consensus argument is that corruption constraints economic growth by hindering
both internal and external productive investment, through tax and discouraging entre-
preneur manpower development which will, in turn, reduce economic growth and de-
cline in economic growth leads to more poverty.”6

Social Factors

4 Ehrlich, Isaac, and Francis T. Lui., ‘Bureaucratic Corruption and Endogenous Economic Growth.’ [1999]
Journal of Political Economy, vol. 107, no. S6, The University of Chicago Press.
5 Lutzker, Michael A., ‘Max Weber and the Analysis of Modern Bureaucratic Organization: Notes toward a
Theory of Appraisal.’ [1982] The American Archivist, vol. 45, no. 2, Society of American Archivists.
6 Yusuf, Muhammad, et al., ‘CORRUPTION, POVERTY, AND ECONOMIC GROWTH RELATIONSHIP IN
THE NIGERIAN ECONOMY.”  [2014] The Journal of Developing Areas, vol. 48, no. 3, College of Business,
Tennessee State University.

Page 10 of 21
As is mentioned above, social factors is reflected in all bureaucracies. In countries with high
level of inequality for example, the likelihood of favouritism within the bureaucracy to a par-
ticular community during selection processes and general functioning, is higher. This too is a
form of corruption, where there is benefitting of a particular group of people by abuse of
power. Even though western bureaucracies are increasingly imitated to attain the said equal-
ity and practice it in their behaviour, the adaptability of such practices within an exotic cul-
ture is questionable. Another, appealing perspective to this is the notion that the only differ-
ence in the bureaucratic behaviour among various cultures is due to the varying degree of
such discrimination. Such irrationality, in fact, exists in western societies albeit differently.
Robert V. Presthus in his paper ‘The Social Bases of Bureaucratic Organisation’ further ex-
plains this phenomenon by narrating examples of mid- eastern subjectivity, deeply rooted in
religion and the lack of separation of politics and religion whereas in the West, the protestant
Catholics increasingly contribute to capitalism while at the same time, there was rationalisa-
tion and difference between the two. He further explains, mid-eastern’s commitment to fatal-
ism manifests a negative growth of innovation and self aid. This conflict between religious/
ethnic beliefs and desire to develop, often idealising western societies causes an overall nega-
tive impact on bureaucratic development. The hybrid combination of culture specific beliefs
mixed with modern characteristics produces a confusing system that does not necessarily in-
herit best of both but rather an amalgamation of elements that was convenient to apply to
people that are already a part of the institution. This is not to say that, bureaucracies must be
independent of cross cultural influences. Often the cross of cultures has helped in bureau-
cratic developments, for example— India. However, the fact that this combination is not a re-
sult of a careful choosing, to suit the society best, but rather a blind attempt at imitating the
West, perceived as ideal. Furthermore, education system plays a huge rule in determining the
ways of functioning in a bureaucracy. Robert V. Presthus in his paper, describes how the fact
the there is a practice of rote learning and blind faith on professors who are almost given a
pedestal of saint, manifests submissive behaviour. This can result in a junior partaking in cor-
rupt practices while obeying the orders of his boss or to please him. Moreover, the tendencies
of rote learning develops a lack of practical knowledge and preparation to tackle problems on
ground. Social pressure to achieve a certain material standing often results in corruption.

Political Factors

Page 11 of 21
Bureaucrats are deeply involved in policy making, executory functions and enjoy immense
amount of power. They in fact, in many ways shape the public image of the government at
the ground level. Corruption due to political factors is highly common as a result of the abuse
of power by both, bureaucrats and politicians to benefit each other while the public remains a
major sufferer. Bernard S. Silberman in his paper ‘Bureaucratic Development And Bureau-
cratization: The Case Of Japan’ argues that often when there are changes in the political
systems, it is possible for the bureaucracy to remain a constant factor. Although the bureau-
cracy may view political developments as a nuisance, preventing its smooth functioning, the
fact that bureaucracy itself has no political commitment makes it easy to adapt to the said po-
litical development and remain present as is. However, there is no empirical data to study this
theory and is only a conceptual thread. This is explained by Robert K. Merton in his paper
‘Bureaucratic Structure and Personality’—

“A measure of flexibility in the bureaucracy is attained by electing higher functionar-

ies who presumably express the will of the electorate (e.g. a body of citizens or a
board of directors). The election of higher officials is designed to affect the purposes
of the organization, but the technical procedures for attaining these ends are per-
formed by a continuous bureaucratic personnel”7
Other bureaucratic characteristics such as an extremely impersonalised working environment,
maximised security and previously discussed lack of capability and knowledge further aids in
submissive tendencies such that bureaucracy is used as a political tool to serve the govern-
ment’s interests rather than people’s. This may be lead to the point where primary concern of
bureaucrats and bureaucratic functions becomes conformity to the rules of the said political
power, interfering with the achievement of the original purposes of the organization, i.e. serv-
ing the public, an evidence of the consequence of this is red tape of the official. Thus, it de -
creases productivity. It is also common knowledge that this slow process of bureaucratic
functions itself breeds corruption— the rich and powerful bribing officials to speed up the
process while the poor and middle class suffers the main brunt of lethargy.

“The process may be briefly summarised as follows—

(i) A rationalised bureaucracy demands reliability of response and strict devotion to regula-
tions.

7 Merton, Robert K., ‘Bureaucratic Structure and Personality.’ [1940] Social Forces, vol. 18, no. 4, Oxford
University Press.

Page 12 of 21
(ii) Such devotion to the rules leads to their transformation into absolutes; they are no longer
conceived as relative to a given set of purposes.
(iii) This interferes with ready adaptation under special conditions not clearly envisaged by
those who drew up the general rules.
(iv) Thus, the very elements which conduce toward efficiency in general, produce ineffi-
ciency in specific instances.”8

8 Supra note 7.

Page 13 of 21
 Max Weber Theory on Bureaucracy
It is difficult to believe that someone as intelligent and well informed as Max Weber was not
well aware or has not really written about the extent of political corruption in many ‘modern’
societies. This is perhaps explained by the fact that he viewed corruption as inherent in ortho-
dox, traditional bureaucracies and a transformation to modern system would eventually solve
this problem. In contrast to this Karl Marx believed, corruption would not go away at least in
a capitalist society. Yet there is ample evidence that, the Weberian theory, that professional
organisation could mitigate corruption was accurate to a certain extent—

“This process is well illustrated in England, where a highly corrupt government infra-
structure in the eighteenth century gave way to a governmental structure, and in par-
ticular a professional civil service, which were renowned for their impartiality and
lack of corruption or corrupt practices.”9

However, the authors of the above quoted text, later explain this event by analysing the edu-
cation patters of such cabinet ministers— that they were all educated in public school and
later, Oxford or Cambridge. Additionally, this was also unique to British rather than other so-
cieties that went through a similar process of modernisation. Yet Weber believed that the
German bureaucracy at the time depicted in his conception, a legal-rational bureaucracy that
was rid of corruption. This may in fact appear to be true as most Arab nations, for example
have high level of corruption and they also rank low on ‘modernisation’. However, western
nations, are not entirely free from corruption despite their better development and status of
being in the advanced stage of ‘modernisation’. Moreover, when looking at international or-
ganised crime rings and societies such as the post-communist Russia, vast fortunes have been
made through corrupt means and ironically these organisations themselves are highly hierar-
chical and professional. His theory proves problematic in cases where there is government in-
volvement and government-sanctioned programmes of atrocities that are obeyed and carried
out by the bureaucracy precisely as a result of an extremely hierarchical structure and method
of functioning where dissent is highly discouraged and the bureaucrat despite a different
opinion, justifies his action as inevitable as one cannot defer higher authority. For Weber so-

9 Rubinstein, William D., and Patrick von Maravic., ‘Max Weber, Bureaucracy, and Corruption.’ [2010] The
Good Cause: Theoretical Perspectives on Corruption, edited by Gjalt de Graaf et al., 1st ed., Verlag Barbara Bu-
drich.

Page 14 of 21
cial change was a result of new realisation of rationality that restrains certain forms of behav-
iour and encourages others which can change sources of legitimacy.

The Weberian model classifies authorities into three categories— traditional, charismatic and
legal-rational. Traditional model is basically a monarchy or where power is inherited while
charismatic leadership is when there one leader or a group that, for its brilliance or popularity
rules the society till death. For example, military leader, popular politicians etc. there is little
dissent here and people perceive them to be infallible. Furthermore, in both these models,
favouritism or corrupt behaviour is inherent. People are negligible answerable or accountable
as a result of being in power not due to meritocracy, but simply because they were born privi-
leged or people almost blindly, trust them. Next is the model of a legal-rational bureaucracy.
Weber mentions 7 characteristics of an ideal, legal-rational bureaucracy.

1. “Bureaucratic officials are personally free and subject to authority only with respect to
their impersonal official obligations.
2. Each office has a clearly defined sphere of competence in the legal sense.
3. Officials are selected on the basis of technical qualifications, usually tested by examina-
tion or guaranteed by diplomas certifying technical training. In sociological terms, the

bases of recruitment are ‘universalistic,’ i.e., recruitment is broadly based throughout the
society and cuts across class, ethnic, and religious lines, since it is determined largely on
objective bases of training and competence. Recruitment on subjective, class oriented
bases is called "particularistic.
4. The official is subject to strict and systematic discipline and control in the conduct of his
office.
5. His office constitutes a career; only under defined circumstances can the employing au-
thority terminate his employment.
6. Bureaucracies may be either ‘charismatic’ or ‘legal-rational,' but the former is merely a
transitional stage in an inevitable movement toward the latter.
7. Bureaucratic structure is legally and rationally based, and is thus merely an instrument
controlled by some authority outside itself.”10

10 Supra note 1.

Page 15 of 21
This, he believed could root out corruption, of all types. It can be further explained by the fact
that chances of patrimonial corruption is highly unlikely if there is a concrete set of guide-
lines to regulate the processes. The fact that there is an increased sense of accountability, in
general, for there are set rules that are blind to individual identities of persons rationalises bu-
reaucracy. Despite, previously discussed drawbacks and evidence of the same, this model is
still relevant and can be used to increase rationalisation of bureaucracies.

Page 16 of 21
 Utopian Bureaucracy
The possibility of complete rationalisation of bureaucracy or even just absence of corruption
in bureaucratic organisations is something several philosophers, political scientists and soci-
ologists have strived to achieve. The Weberian theory even attempts to associate corruption
with traditional systems. This notion however, is problematic for several reasons as discussed
above. This is because, as a very socially connected organisation, any change or need of the
society is reflected in bureaucracy. For example, if a society proves to get rid of tax evasions
by corporations completely, and corruption in that aspect as result (as it is argued that poverty
is major cause of corruption) there are high chances of novel problems such as environmental
concerns (environmental and climate change concerns have caused governments to keep
close scrutiny on big corporations) that can provide a new explanation to corrupt behaviour in
bureaucracies. Thus, when problems and needs are endless, it is impossible for one to attain a
completely idyllic body of organisation.

Furthermore, while looking into policies or laws through which corruption can be rooted out,
it is crucial to understand that no matter how stringent laws seem to be, human greeds
takeover to result in actions contrary to the law. While the question of achieving utopian soci-
eties itself is a whole different area of discussion, its theories most often apply to bureaucratic
structures as well.

Over the past few decades, several scholars in an attempt to define utopianism have come to
an understanding that it carries many manifestations or aspects and cannot be restricted to a
single idea. Many theories and definitions have often relied on ‘desire’. 11 One way to per-
ceive it can be— as the consequence of human propensity to want fulfillments of all his de-
sires, for himself and others. For example, Crane Brinton wrote—

“The Utopian thinker starts with the proposition, by no means limited to the Utopian
thinker, that things (no more exact word is useful here) are bad; next, things must be-
come better . . . here on earth and soon; things will not improve to this degree by

11 Sargent, Lyman Tower, ‘The Three Faces of Utopianism Revisited.' [1994] Utopian Studies, vol. 5, no. 1,
Penn State University Press.

Page 17 of 21
 themselves, by a 'natural' growth or development of things-as-they-are; a plan must be
developed and put into execution”12

“The definition of utopianism is, of course, itself cast in terms of an ideal and it is
possible to be a Utopian without developing a complete description of an ideal soci-
ety, a rigorous argument demonstrating that the proposed ideal is actually achievable,
or a fully-developed moral justification. Eventually, however, if these failures become
severe, the thinker ceases to be a Utopian and becomes something else (a
novelist?).”13

With this understanding of utopia, that some call ‘social dreaming,’ one can say that a
utopian bureaucracy is a possibility. Given that there is maximum level of its attainment, bu-
reaucratic structures are still susceptible to corrupt behaviours. This is because upon needs
changing and building on each other, corrupt tendencies come back to take root again. This is
simply because it is impossible to fulfil all persons’ all needs. Thus, when a man sees that
there is lack of resources to obtain something through legal means, he will choose to obtain it
through corrupt means.

12 Supra note 11.

13 Paden, Roger., ‘Marx’s Critique of the Utopian Socialists.’ [2002] Utopian Studies, vol. 13, no. 2, Penn State
University Press.

Page 18 of 21
 Suggestions
The legal-rational model is exerted on the basis of clear rules wherein the ends justify the
means of execution. While charismatic and traditional rules function on the lines of gaining
personal benefit and thus, patronage is an essential element, this model works with a purpose
of productivity and efficiency. Every decision taken is ruled to be within the parameters of
the model. This however, increases red-tapism and as a result is often counter productive to
maximise efficiency. However, it maintains the highest level of impartiality and accountabil-
ity and lowest level of nepotism and favouritism. This is because of the strict rules it may
have to follow. Studies however, have found evidence through empirical studies, high pro-
portion of civil servants, around 40% in Egypt, being sons of civil servants even though the
selection process is vigorous, including competitive tests etc. testing the candidates’ technical
knowledge14.

This is not to suggest that bureaucracies must revert back to older models. However, there is
an increasing need for re-examining within bureaucratic organisations to understand why,
even after years of development and effort, it has failed to appropriately grow and reflect the
needs of 21st century society. One of the reasons for this may be the fact that rules and regu-
lations meant to avoid such biases do not adequately serve the purpose. Thus, even though
they helped in a successful transformation from previous models to the present, legal-rational
model, they have become redundant as a result of not constantly adapting them to the cur-
rently prevalent social conditions.

14 Supra note 1.

Page 19 of 21
 Conclusion & Discussion of Hypothesis
As discussed above there are many factors to keep in mind while considering the causes and
effect of corruption and other such irrationalities in bureaucracies. As far as I understand, it is
correct to say— Bureaucracy and sociology are very closely related. Any change in one re-
sults in an effect on the other. Additionally, there is no one factor or variable that can wholly
explain corruption. It is rather a result of all such variable interacting to form a general per-
ception of bureaucracies in the society. Furthermore, the understanding of Max Weber’s the-
ory on Bureaucracy provided a model to base my study on, so as to compare and analyse the
ideas surrounding rationality and objectivity in bureaucracies. It was come to understand that,
his theory that ‘modernisation’ of bureaucracies can eventually lead to complete rationalisa-
tion is problematic for various reasons. One of them being the fact that constant cultural, eco-
nomical and political progression makes it impossible for a certain practice or method to re-
main as useful or relevant as before thus, the lack of constant revision and transformation of
the system that is already ridden with red-tapism.

In terms of the given hypothesis- “Complete rationalisation of behaviour in bureaucracy is

not possible. However, it is possible to mitigate corruption to an extent, depending on the so-
ciological factors” each element was adequately discussed to come to the conclusion and say
that it stands accepted. As is possible in the above mentioned text supplemented with appro-
priate sources, a utopian bureaucracy— a bureaucratic organisation that is perfect and lacks
any and all irrational patterns of behaviour is not really possible. But it is possible to control
other variables such as poverty, crime rate, education and occupation such that there is mini-
mum need or explanations and opportunities for such conducts. Evidence of which can be
seen in countries that are in the advanced stages of modernisation and development like
Switzerland wherein, there is very less corruption.

Lastly, I believe I have done justice to my research questions and fulfilled the objectives of
my study, efficiently and have answered them in thorough detail and supplemented my an-
swer with equally relevant sources.

Page 20 of 21
 Bibliography
Journals & Books
1. Presthus, Robert V., ‘The Social Bases of Bureaucratic Organization.’ [1959] Social
Forces, vol. 38, no. 2, Oxford University Press.

2. Rubinstein, William D., and Patrick von Maravic., ‘Max Weber, Bureaucracy, and Cor-
ruption.’ [2010] The Good Cause: Theoretical Perspectives on Corruption, edited by
Gjalt de Graaf et al., 1st ed., Verlag Barbara Budrich.

3. Merton, Robert K., ‘Bureaucratic Structure and Personality.’ [1940] Social Forces, vol.
18, no. 4, Oxford University Press.

4. Yusuf, Muhammad, et al., ‘CORRUPTION, POVERTY, AND ECONOMIC GROWTH

RELATIONSHIP IN THE NIGERIAN ECONOMY.”  [2014] The Journal of Developing
Areas, vol. 48, no. 3, College of Business, Tennessee State University.

5. Lutzker, Michael A., ‘Max Weber and the Analysis of Modern Bureaucratic Organiza-
tion: Notes toward a Theory of Appraisal.’ [1982] The American Archivist, vol. 45, no.
2, Society of American Archivists.

6. Ehrlich, Isaac, and Francis T. Lui., ‘Bureaucratic Corruption and Endogenous Eco-
nomic Growth.’ [1999]  Journal of Political Economy, vol. 107, no. S6, The University of
Chicago Press.

7. Hearn, Francis., ‘Rationality and Bureaucracy: Maoist Contributions to a Marxist The-

ory of Bureaucracy.’ [1978] The Sociological Quarterly, vol. 19, no. 1, Midwest Socio-
logical Society, Wiley

8. Paden, Roger., ‘Marx’s Critique of the Utopian Socialists.’ [2002] Utopian Studies, vol.
13, no. 2, Penn State University Press.

Page 21 of 21