Modernity and Bureaucracy

Author(s): Fred W. Riggs

Source: Public Administration Review, Vol. 57, No. 4 (Jul. - Aug., 1997), pp. 347-353
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Society for Public Administration
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/977318 .
Accessed: 11/06/2014 00:34

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Wiley and American Society for Public Administration are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Public Administration Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.203 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 00:34:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Modernity
Bureaucracy has beena fundamental institution of
government for several thousand years.All tradition-
al empiresand manypremodern kingdomsdevel-
Bureaucracy
Modernity
and opedmoreor lesselaborate bureaucracies-those
the Chinese,Roman,and OttomanEmpiresare
of

amongthemostfamiliar. As hierarchies ofappointed

officials, bureaucracies wereneverdemocraticin
Fred WRiggs, UniversityofHawaii structure or purpose-they weredesignedto enable
monarchs to administer domainsundertheirauthor-
ity,to expandthosedomains,and to protectthem
In thisarticle,FredRiggs examines theconceptofmodernity (par- fromaggressiveneighboringpeoples. To these
ticularlyin thecontext ofindustrialization,
democratization, and ancientfunctions, moderndemocracies haveadded
nationalism), andhowithashelped shapetheadministrative manynewtasksdrivenbytherequisites ofrepresen-
statesweknowtoday. tative governance, industrialization,and nationalism.
Modernity, therefore, has vastlyexpandedthe
Industrialization hasvastlyexpanded boththe tasksassignedto functions of traditionalbureaucracies, transforming
all contemporary governmentsandtheresources and
(domestic themintoformidable dragons. The dragonofmod-
international) placedat theirdisposal.Thishasnotonly ern bureaucracy resembles traditionalbureaucracy as
increased theneedfor andhumane
efficient publicadministra- a formofhierarchic organization designed to domi-
tion,butithasalsomagnified forbureaucratic
thenecessity
nate and control subject populations and to do so
andimpartial management of
efficiently. Its newformsevolvedin thecontextof
powerin order toensurecompetent
modernimperialism: In orderto ruletheirempires,
publicaffairs italsoenhances
but,regrettably, for
opportunities
eventhemostdemocratic ofthemodern statesdevel-
corruption and mismanagement.
oped mechanisms of colonialadministration that
permitted far-away metropoles to maintainlong-
Theeffectofdemocratization hasbeentoreplace monarchs with
termdomination overconqueredpeoples.In short,
representative capableofcontrolling
institutions anddirecting
no bureaucracies, modernor traditional, aredemo-
increasingly complex bureaucracies-while ensuring the
officials
cratic; theyareinstead administrative andhierarchic.
autonomy andstable guidelinesthey need.Whenthese institu- However,democratizing countries wereable to
tionsfailtofunction as
effectively, theyoftendo,publicadminis- import bureaucratic structures andbringthemunder
tration cancollapse and,in manycases,angered publicofficials, popularcontrol. Undersuchcontrol, representative
ledbymilitary seizepowerandestablish
officers, bureaucratic governments couldusebureaucracies toprovide pub-
politiesmarked bycorruptionandevengreater inefficiency. lic services thathavebecomeincreasingly necessary
forthepopulations of all modernstates.However,
Nationalism hasplayeda fundamental rolein thecreation of modern bureaucracies can alsofunction as organsof
modern democracies. Unfortunately,however, in manycountries, domination andexploitation, as we can easilysee in
including theUnitedStates, strainsgeneratedbyimperial con- manycountries wherearbitrary and oppressive-
questsand massmigrations havenowcreated a hostofinter-eth- even totalitarian-regimes relyon bureaucracies to
nictensions andpitifullyweakstates wheretraditionalconceptsof sustainandmaintain theirruthless domination. The
publicadministration basedonassumed national unityareputto key variable has not been any fundamental transfor-
tests.
severe
mationin thestructure of bureaucratic organiza-
tion-rather,it has involvedtheestablishment of
newpoliticalstructures able to maintainpopular
controlover the conduct and performanceof
appointed publicofficials.

Public
Administration
Review* July/August
1997,Vol.57,No.4 347

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.203 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 00:34:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Mypurpose, howthreeaspects
hereis to describe ofmoderni-
ty-industrialism,
democracy, and nationalism-have impinged Bureaucratic wasaninevitable
expansion
on bureaucracy
in theworldtoday, in theliberated
especially new
states
thathaveemerged ontheashesofcollapsedempires. ofindustrialization
consequence itadded
because new
Industrialization tasks
tothe
traditionalfunctions
ofgovernance.
The historical and interlocking dynamics ofindustrialization, longrun.As nationalproduction grew,risingincomesnotonly
democratization, andnationalism areexplored inRiggs(1994)and wouldbenefit therulingelitebutalso wouldfinancegrowing
I shallnotrepeat thatdiscussion here.Instead,I shallfocuson the bureaucracies.
implications ofeachoftheseaspects ofmodernity forbureaucracy Bureaucratic expansion wasan inevitable consequence ofindus-
andpublicadministration. Letmestart withtheindustrial revolu- trializationbecause itaddednewtaskstothetraditional functions of
tion,whosedirectimplications formodern bureaucracy areobvi- governance. Newrolesand relationships evolvedin all modern
ousandstunning. bureaucracies, including thereplacement ofold normsbasedon
Firstofall,theneedforcomplex andhighly technical public honorandstatus withnewonesoriented to efficiency andperfor-
services hasbeenvastlyincreased byindustrialization, as hasthe mance.Increasingly, industrialization generated newtasksforpublic
capacity ofappointed officials
to organizeandarmthemselves for policyandaddedtechnological toolsto therepertoire available to
collective action-letmeemphasize thepointthatmilitary officerspublicofficials, provided theycouldbe heldaccountable to reason-
as wellas civilservants areappointed officials, bureaucrats.The ablestandards ofintegrity andprevented from oppressing thegrow-
growing needfortheirservices conjoinedwiththenewresourcesingbodyofwealthy andincreasingly powerful industrialists. The
(includingweapons)thatindustrialization offers has greatly shift from traditional tomodern modesofbureaucratic organization
increased thepotential powerofbureaucrats,
political giving them andresponsibility, however, wasnoteasyandnever a surething.
thecapacity todestroy aswellas tosustain thelifeoffragile socioe- In modern bureaucracies publicservice hascometo be seenas
conomic systems. analogous toemployment inprivate corporations: officials became
One can arguethatcapitaland capitalism (especiallyin city employees, status andhonorwerereplaced bycompetence andper-
states)is quiteancient, butindustrialization,involving large-scaleformance. In exchange fortheirservices, publicemployees were
production usinginanimate sources ofenergy (coal,oil,electrici-offered moreadequate wagesandsalaries, whileprebends wereout-
ty),is a modern phenomenon thatrequires muchmorethancapi- lawed.As salariesreplacedprebends, bureaucrats becamehired
talism. Capitalists couldonlyriskinvesting in thecostly processes hands.In exchange forsalaries thatweresupposedto provide an
oflarge-scale production aftertheyhadsecured enoughpolitical adequatelivelihood forall incumbents, officialswereto dedicate
influenceto protecttheirinvestments and to safeguard the themselves to thepublicservice andrejectsupplementary sources
required meansofproduction, sources ofrawmaterials, andaccess ofincomesuchas gifts, fees,bribes, andrents. Thisfundamental
towidespread markets. Untiltheeighteenth century orevenlater, transformation in thedynamics ofmodern bureaucracies maybe
theywereunableto exercise suchpowerexceptin theirtrading seenas a product oftheindustrial revolution andthenewconcepts
cities,whichland-basedimperialpowerstolerated in orderto andpractices oflarge-scale, complex organization thatit created,
secureluxury goodsfromremote places(Polanyi, Arensberg, and including theemployment ofmanyworkers disciplined to carry
Pearson, 1957).Industrialization couldevolveonlyafter alliances outcomplicated technological functions. The increasing produc-
arosebetween ambitious kingsandmerchants living insuchcities. tivity generated byindustrialization also permitted government
Eventheurbanempires createdbytrading citiessuchas Carthage, revenues toincrease enough tocovertherising costofsalaried state
Venice, andGenoalackedthemassbaseneededforindustrializa- employees.
tion. Industrialization involved muchmorethanchanges inthetech-
In all traditional empires, I believe,capitalists werepoliticallynology ofproduction; italsorequired a revolution in itsorganiza-
marginalized in preference to othergroupswhosevalueswere tionandmanagement. The useofmodern budgeting, accounting,
sharedbytherulingelites.Butas a bourgeoisie gainedpower, it andauditing methods inbothprivate enterprise andpublicservice
alsogainedwealthbymeansofthetechnological innovations and evolvedinteractively in thepublicand private sectors. Moreover,
investments required forlarge-scaleproduction. Concurrently, the thehigher levelsof production resulting fromindustrialization
organization of corporations protected bypoliticalallies,legal madesalaried bureaucracies feasible byraising thelevelsofnational
sanctions, andsocialacceptance (Riggs, 1994)protected industrial-incomeandthereby providing thenecessary taxableresources. To
istsfromthetendency ofall preindustrialrulersand officials to maintain a salaried bureaucracy, itwasalsonecessary to establish
extract wealthfrommerchants byconfiscating theirgoods,impos- payroll systems outside thecontrol ofanyofficer's immediate supe-
ingtributes, and,aboveall,blocking theiraccesstopower. riors.
Traditionally, governments often paidsuperiors who,inturn,
Statepowerwasneededbothtoprotect private propertyandto paidtheirsubordinates partofwhattheyreceived, retaining the
restrainofficialsfrom burdening entrepreneurs.Thebourgeois pro- surplus forthemselves. To sustain a payroll system, bycontrast, it
jectmarried publicaccountability to privateaccumulation, a pro- becamenecessary tobudget andplan,toimprove taxcollection, to
jectthatcontinues to workin ourowntimes.It involved self- auditandevaluate performance, todetermine salaryscales,andto
restraint bypower-holders whoneededtolearnthatbynotkilling establish all thestaff (overhead) services typical ofmodern public
thegoosethatlaidthegoldeneggtheywouldbecomericher inthe ad~ministration.

348 Public
Administration
Review* July/August
1997,Vol.57,No.4

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.203 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 00:34:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 tivelybe organized and usedto imposeaccountability on public
IWeneed tounderstand how the institutions of bureaucracies. These institutions centeron elected assemblies, pop-
ularelections, politicalparties, responsible headsofgovernment,
representative government canmost beorganized
effectively andtheruleoflaw.Forstudents ofpublicadministration, there-
fore,knowledge oftherequisites forsuccessful democratic control
andused toimpose accountability onpublic bureaucracies. ofa bureaucracy isjustas important as understanding theinternal
dynamics andmanagement ofbureaucratic institutions.
Thereis, ofcourse,a downside to thisprocess-thenegative Thetransformation ofmonarchic authoritarianism intodemoc-
aspectsof modernization. Bureaucrats foundthat,underclose racy, fueledbynotionsofpopularsovereignty, majority rule,and
supervision and salarydependence, moderngovernments could safeguards forminorities occurred concurrently withtheriseof
exploitthemmoreeasilythanpremodern regimescould.However, industrialism and as a secondleg of the triadof modernity.
theycouldalsofight back:Whenofficials werenotwellenough Although theinternal structure ofbureaucracy cannotin anyfun-
rewarded fortheirefforts (in theirowneyes)theycouldrebelif damental sensebe democratized, theability ofanydemocratic sys-
theyactedin concert witheachother. Sometimes theyorganized temofgovernment to workdependson itscapacity to maintain
tradeunionsanddemanded rights basedonbargaining orstriking.andcontrol a bodyofofficials ableandwilling to implement fun-
Whenregimes deniedsuchrights to officials,theycouldrespond damental policiesmadeoutside thebureaucracy. To saythisis not
withsabotage, threatening thosein powerand demanding more todenyofficials an important roleintheprocesses ofpolicydevel-
recognitionandcompensation inexchange forbetter
performance. opmentand implementation: theirexpertise and experience is
Whensuchefforts failed,theycouldsometimes "moonlight,"neededifgeneral policiesareto be implemented wisely andeffec-
engagingin nongovernmental activitiesto supplement their tively.
incomes, evenwhentheresulting conflicts ofinterestcausedpoor-
er performance of theirofficialdutiesor evenbrought about
Oligocracies
sinecurism basedon proforma butnoneffective compliance with
their responsibilities.
official The basicprinciple of democracy as an aspectof modernity
Insteadofworking as obedient nonpolitical publicservants, a involves thereplacement oftop-down monarchic authority with
groupofbureaucrats-always headedbymilitary officerswho,of bottom-uprepresentation-dominated subjectswereto be
course,monopolize themeansofviolence requiredtostagea coup replacedbyfreecitizensable to participate in governance and
d'etat-canseizepowerandestablish a bureaucratic polity, (i.e.,a choosetheirgovernors. However, thisprocessrarely involved a
regime dominated byappointed officials ratherthanbyelected comprehensive politicaltransformation. At best,manypeople
representativesofthepeopleorevenbyhereditary monarchs). We undera state's control werenevergivenequalrights as citizens-
typicallythinkofsuchregimes as a form ofmilitaryauthoritarian- theyremained unrepresented. The familiar sloganoftheAmerican
ism,butthistermis misleading. Military officers
areunableto Revolution (no taxationwithoutrepresentation) persistsas an
manage a government without theactivesupport ofsomecivilser- expression ofthestubborn resentment ofthosewhoarenominally
vants.Becauseallbureaucrats (military andcivil)arevulnerable to butnotactually represented in thepowerstructures ofmostmod-
thesamecomplaints andgrievances whentheyfeelabusedbythe ernso-called democracies. In theAmerican case,conquered peoples,
mostcoupgroups
state, includesomecivilservants as wellas mili- imported slaves,women, andthepoorwerenotenfranchised when
taryofficers. In anybureaucratic politywhere,bydefinition,theConstitution wasproclaimed, andthegreatest modern powers
appointed officialsdominate thestate, thosewhochoosetoengage (including theUnitedStates)as theyextended theirimperial con-
incorruption, oppression, andlaziness cannotbedisciplined. Thus quests, brought largenumbers ofsubjects undertheircontrol. We
thequality ofpublicadministration declines evenfurther, spurringneed,I think, a conceptthatincludes thesemi-democracies that
a viciouscirclethatcanscarcely bearrested. extend therights ofcitizenship andrepresentation in government
In orderto makecertain thatmodern bureaucraciesservethe to somepeoplebutdenythemto others. I usethewordoligocracy
needsofa wholepopulation ina responsible way,theymustnotbe torefer tothiscomposite form ofdemocracy witholigarchy.
allowedto monopolize power,and theinstitutions thatcontrol The bureaucracies serving anyoligocracy experience a kindof
bureaucraciesmustnotbe authoritarian. Instead,responsible polit- politicalschizophrenia. On theonehand,theyarecompelled to
icalinstitutionsareneededthatcaneffectively imposeaccountabil-respect theinterests and rights ofcitizens whoare,in principle,
ityon all theappointed officialsofgovernment. Thisleadsto the their"masters." On theotherhand,theycangovern moreorless
secondmajoraspectofmodernity: theriseofdemocratic institu- arbitrarilythe"subjects" whoareunrepresented in thepolity. The
tions,without whichmodern forms ofbureaucratic powerpermit oligocratic context meansthatin eventhemostdemocratic poli-
abusesthatcouldnotbeimagined inpremodern societies. ties,complete control overbureaucratic performance is neverpos-
sible.Actually, evenwithin theheartlands ofmodern democracies,
cynicism abouttheroleand functions ofbureaucracy oftenpre-
Democratization vails.In thiscontext, thinkabouttheNewPublicAdministration
Sincemodern publicadministration is symbioticwithindustri-movement: itsought to democratize bureaucracy byinducing offi-
alizationratherthanwithdemocracy, and sinceit can be used to cials to be moreresponsive and had
to the clientelestheyaffected
oppresspeople as well as to servethem,we need to understand to work with.No doubttheseefforts wereextremely high-minded,
government
of representative
hlowthe institutions can mosteffec- buthowsuccessful werethey?

Modernity
WaldoSymposium: andBureaucracy 349

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.203 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 00:34:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 I mention thismovement as evidence
The
thatevenamongspecial-
istsinAmerican publicadministration, feelingsofdisillusionment negativeofmodern
aspects public
administration
anddespair aboutbureaucratic conduct arewidespread inAmerica.
How muchmorepervasive mustantibureaucratic sentiment be are
most
visible
inthe
new
statesare
that unable
to
amongdominated peoples,whether theyaresubjectto imperial
control,
tarians,
or,after
independence
includingbureaucrats
theyfallundertheruleofauthori-
(bothcivilservants andmilitaryoffi-
establish institutions
effective ofrepresentative
government.
cers).Thefundamental problem confronting alltheliberated
states administratorsandpunish delinquents?
wasnothowtoredesign theirmodernized bureaucraciesbutrather Thenegative aspects ofmodern publicadministration aremost
howto bringthemundertheeffective control ofresponsibleand visiblein thenewstatesthatareunableto establish effectiveinsti-
representative
political How to transform
institutions. domineer-tutions ofrepresentativegovernment. However, evenin theheart-
ingbureaucratsintoresponsible publicservants wasdoubly daunt- landsofthemostdemocratic countries, we arebecoming more
ingforcountries liberatedfromimperial rulebecausethecolonial awareofthelimitations ofmodernity, howbureaucratic authority
officers
whohadshapedtheir images ofpublicadministration were canbe abused, andhowpublicadministration canfailtosolvethe
never accountableto representatives
ofthepeopleoverwhomthey complex problems generated byindustrialization. Thusdemocrati-
ruled. zation,as an aspectofmodernization, hascreated greatexpecta-
tionsofbureaucratic performance in all countries;
failure to meet
theseexpectationsnowcausesgreat disappointment.
Bureaucratic Modernization
In thecontext ofindustrialization, theneedforhighly profes-
A recognition thatWesternmonarchies werereplacedby sionaland competent publicadministration has also increased
oligocracies
rather thandemocracies mayhelpus understand the Thus,evenin thestaunchest ofmodern democracies,dissatisfac-
dynamics of modernity and bureaupower.Whileindustrialismtionwithbureaucratic performance spreads,and thecapacity of
anddemocracy reinforced eachotherintheir homelands, industri-representativeinstitutionsto monitorand inspiretheirbureaucra-
alismalso poweredtheimperialist driveto gaincontrolover cieshas becomeincreasingly problematic. The twoaspectsof
sourcesofrawmaterials andpotential markets. Thusgovernments modernity considered so farhavenotadvanced synchronically:In
thatgainedcontrol overmodern bureaucracies to meettheneeds themostindustrialized countries, democratic institutions have
oftheircitizens
couldalsomanage colonialbureaucraciesdesigned faredmoderately well,thoughwithout totalsuccess,in gaining
tomaintain domination oversubjects livinginremote places.The control overmodernized bureaucracies whoseservices havebecome
forcesthatledtotheestablishment ofrepresentative institutions
at increasingly
necessary.Theconcurrent capacityofthesebureaucra-
homeresisted thedemocratic empowerment ofconquered peoples ciesto dominate andexploit a polity,however, hasexpanded even
whilealso undermining thevitalityoftheirtraditional political more,especially in thenewlyliberated countries formed under
institutions. imperialdomination.
No doubtthemaintenance ofeffective
controloverbureaucracy
is a fundamental problemin all countries,butit is especially
poignant indemocracies wherenotionsofpopular sovereignty
lead
Nationalism
citizensto viewofficials
as publicservants,whoshouldservethe The fundamental problems ofmodernity, however, cannotbe
peopleunselfishlybyproviding services
andimplementing policies fully
explained byreference totheriseofindustrialism anddemoc-
approved bythegeneral publicthrough theirelectedrepresenta-racy,as important as thesefactors
are.In addition,wemustconsid-
tives.Suchexpectations did notprevailin traditionalforms of era third factor:nationalism.In thenewly liberatedpost-imperial
where
authoritarianism, a ruler's
subjectswereexpectedtoserve the states,
thisfactor (intheform ofethnonationalism) willincreasing-
rulersandnotto demandrights oftheirown.Theabuseofpower lythreaten theviability ofall regimes,
but,I believe, democracies
byappointed officials
wasnotonlyexpected, itwasalsoaccepted willhavea better chanceofsolving theseproblems thanauthoritar-
in suchenvironments, andthiscontributed to thestability
ofpre- ianregimes-especially weakanarchism. The roleofbureaucracies
modern forms ofauthoritarianism.
Whenmodernization spreadto in dealingwithethnicnationalism is decisive-aboveall with
dependent countries,
however,itspreaddemocratic norms thatled problems ofrepresentative bureaucracy.
thecitizensofthenewstates toexpecttheir governmentstorespect Mostwriters aboutnationalism treatitas an independent phe-
andmeettheir needs.Whenthisdidnothappen, weshouldnotbe nomenon notlinked withtheotherdimensions ofmodernity, but
surprisediftheyresponded withangerandsupported revolution-inmyopinion, itsrealsignificance
becomes apparentonlywhenit
arymovements, coups led by military officers,
or revoltsby isviewedas partofthebroader processthatstarted withthePeace
oppressed minorities. ofWestphalia (in themiddleoftheseventeenth century) making
Ithasnever beeneasyineventhemostdemocratic countriesfor sovereignty itscentral slogan.Thiswatershed eventmarkedthe
theorgans ofrepresentative
government tosustaineffective
control endoftheHolyRomanEmpireand theEuropean myththatall
overtheirbureaucracies.No doubtsocializationbymeansofgood rulers werepartofa single imperialandsacredhierarchy ofauthor-
educational preparation
andin-service
trainingprograms forpublic ityandlegitimacy. The newerawasto be oneinwhichsovereign
officials
can help,but on thejob, do we not also needthecontinu- states,eachwiththeirown bordersand subjectpopulations,could
ous presenceofauditorsand monitorswho, representing thepub- act on theirown authority.
Rivalkingsbeganto linktheirincreas-
lic interest,under legislativecontrol,can rewardresponsible inglyquestionablesovereignty as rulersto thesovereignty
of their

350 Public
Administration
Review* July/August
1997,Vol.57,No.4

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.203 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 00:34:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
kingdoms as independent states.In thestruggles thatfollowed, allyestablished a senseofAmerican nationalism andidentity that
statesemerged as thefocusnotonlyofinternational conflict butof persiststodaydespitethegrowing forcesofethnicdiversity and
ourunderstanding ofsociety. Amongtherulers, a fewtriumphedregionalseparatism.
overtheir rivalsandcreated the"great powers" inwhichtheindus- Bycontrast, ethnicnationalism emerged on theashesofcol-
trialrevolution tookplace,anddemocratization eventually became lapsed empireswheretraditionalformsof legitimacy were
linked, perversely, withimperialism. destroyed andloyalty totheimperial state, ortoitssuccessor states,
The bourgeois clashes withmonarchs led,as notedabove,to a failed toprovide a unifying basisforpolitical legitimacy.Would-be
newconceptualization ofsovereignty: thenotionthatlegitimateleadersof competing ethnonational communities nowstriveto
authority shouldarisewithin a stateaddedto theearlier emphasis gainthesupportof marginalized minorities and to createnew
on theindependence ofstates as a primary focusofattention. The states,replacing thosethatnowexistwithnewerones,wherethey
twoideasremain linked, however, anditisoften difficultintoday's in turncan becometherulingelite.Theirstruggles, however,
struggles forsovereignty to knowwhichis intended. In fact,they heighten thecrisisof illegitimacy in thepoliticalvacuumsthat
becameconjoined intheideaofa statenation. I usetheterm "state havearisenbetween collapsed regimes and newonesthatarenot
nation" to meanthatstatebuilding precedes nationbuilding. Such yetborn.
a statecombines itsclaimsforindependence (sovereignty) withthe The goalsofstatenationalism weresubstantially, though never
ideaofnational homogeneity (i.e.,thatallcitizens share-orought fully, metwithinthecontiguous territory of thegreatmodern
to share-anethnicidentity basedon ancestry, language, religion,states.However, theycould not be realizedin theconquered
andothercultural manifestations). Thisideabecamelinkedwith domains.Instead,thegoalof nationalism generated a powerful
thestruggle fordemocracy. To replace royal sovereignty withpopu- backlash as themotorfordiverse liberation movements. Activists
larsovereignty involved defining thepeople:Whowouldhavethe struggling to breakthebondsof imperialcontrolfoundthat
right to create andmaintain a representative government basedon nationalist sloganshad tremendous popularappeal,notonlyin
theprinciple ofmajority rule? theirownlandsbut also amongsympathizers in theimperial
The primary instrument forachieving national unitywasthe metropoles whoseactive support helpedthemtosucceed.
stateitself. Statepoliciesweredesigned to createnations. Perhaps The dynamic ofcontemporary ethnic nationalism needsto be
themostsuccessful casewasthatofFrance, where anelitebasedin contrasted withstate nationalism. Itaroseon theruinsofthemod-
Parissucceededin creating a commonlanguage and ethosthat ernempires, including boththecapitalist Western statesand,final-
eventually brought most(though neverall) French peoplewithin ly,theSovietUnionand Yugoslavia. The struggle fornational
itsdomain.It cannot, forexample, assimilatefully allofitsminori- identity preceded statebuilding intheimperial possessions.Ethnic
tycommunities; norcanitabsorbtheFrancophones living outside nationalism reverses thehistoric sequenceofstatenationalism-it
France, especially inSwitzerland andBelgium butalsoinCanada. starts withethnic communities demanding sovereignty andseeking
We needto be clearaboutthedynamics ofthisformofstate- to create theirownstates.Forthemostpart,theconflicts among
drivennationalism, whichI call statenationalism. Modernity nationsthatwe see in theworldtodayinvolveethnonational
required nationalism in orderto achievethebourgeois goalsof movements forsovereignty attheexpense ofexisting states.
industrialism and democracy. Creating a nationalstate-i.e.,a Modernstatenationscultivate a senseof nationalidentity
statewhosecitizens areethnically homogeneous-was seenbyits amongtheircitizens byassimilating or excluding (evenkilling)
bourgeois energizers as a requisite bothforthesuccess ofindustri-outsiders. Bycontrast, themovements forself-determination inthe
alization anddemocracy. A national stateisa kindofidealtypethat imperial successor statesarea modern phenomenon thatpromotes
existsas a goalbutis never, I think, fullyrealized. The slippery resistance, eventerrorism andcivilwars,to achieveitsgoals.The
term, nation state, canbe a synonym forthisidea,butin conven- riseofethnic nationalism is,therefore, as mucha product ofmod-
tionalusage,all independent states,members of theUnited ernization as industrialization anddemocratization, theothermain
Nations, areclassedas nationstates, although theyaresurely not aspectsofmodernity, and it alsohasprofound consequences for
national states. bureaucracy and publicadministration. In an earlieranalysis, I
In moderndemocracies, thelegitimacy ofrepresentative gov- viewed theseproblems undertheheading ofpoly-communalism as
ernment restsheavily on thepremise thatsovereignty belongs toa aninherently "prismatic" process (Riggs,1964,158-64)butnow,I
nationas defined bysharedancestry, language, religion,andcul- thinkwe needto viewit alsoas a modern problem generated by
ture.Morethanjust a populationof coresidents, nationsare nationalism.
viewedas collectivities whosemembers can and shouldgovern Contemporary ethnic nationalism is a newphenomenon andis
themselves. Theyhavea right to exclude nonmembers orto natu- a productof modernity and imperialism. No doubtprimordial
ralize(nationalize) them.Sinceno modernstatesbeganwithan sentiments andmyths areexploited bytheactivists wholeadand
ethnically unified population, theircreation involved a process of shapeethnonational movements, butthedynamics oftheircon-
nationbuilding,as bestillustrated bytheFrenchexperience. temporary emergence isstrictlymodern.
Although Francemaybe themostsuccessful national state,other Bureaucrats in thenewstatesofteninherit thehostility previ-
countries soughtthesameends.The Englishstatecreated Great ouslydirected at foreign imperialists. As members ofdominant
Britain,though British nationalism remains defective (andcertain- minorities, theynotonlyperpetuated manyforeign practices and
but
ly the United Kingdomneverbecame a unifiednation). In the attitudesassociatedwiththe formercolonial administrators,
to
testedAmericanunity, theyare also scornedas usurpersbelonging
UnitedStates,aftertheCivil Warseriously locallyhatedcom-
theleadersofindustryand democracy statesgradu- munities.The tendencyto associatebureaucratswith minority
in thenorthern

andBureaucracy
Modernity
WaldoSymposium: 351

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.203 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 00:34:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
domination in newstatesmayoftenbe attributed to thenatural unable orunwilling tonourish them intheir conquered domains,
inclinationofanyimperial powertorecruit members ofdisaffecteditiseasytoseehowperversely modernization hasaffected thenew
minoritiesto helpthemadminister theirpossessions. Understand-states formed bythecollapsed empires. Actually, thesenegative
ably,manyifnotmostconquered peoplesresist theirconquerorsconsequences ofmodernization arenowincreasingly feltin the
andrefuse to workforthem.Bycontrast, previously marginalizedheartlands ofthemodern empires andeveninneighboring democ-
communities ina conquered landoften viewednewrulers as liber- raciesthatnever engaged inimperial conquests. Therising tideof
atorsand,insomecases,actually helpedthemconqueror their new criminal andurban violence, drug addiction, andanomie, plusthe
domains. Notsurprisingly, thosewhoworkfortheimperialists also flow ofrefugees andother immigrants, maybeviewed as symp-
widentheircleavages withmarginalized majority communities.tomatic ofthedemoralization andeconomic consequences ofthe
The cliche,divideand rule,reflects thissituation without really imperial wars.Sincethese warswere themselves anaspect ofmod-
explainingitsinnerdynamics. ernization,wecansimplify ouranalysis byviewing allthese conse-
Evenwhenthebureaucrats innewstates arenotactually recruit-quences asamong thenegative by-products ofmodernity. Notsur-
edfrom collaborationist minorities,their roleas members ofa weak prisingly, thesephenomena havealso undermined public
andauthoritarian stateapparatus isenough togenerate antagonismsadministration anddeeply affectedbureaucracies in theimperial
byvarious alienated communities. Moreover, whenminority com- homelands.
munities prevail amongthemilitary officerswhoseizepowerbya Themostvisible consequence canbeseenin theriseofeth-
coupd'etat, ethnonational hostilitiesareintensified. nonational movements insomeofthemostindustrialized coun-
Consider alsothattheinexperience ofbureaucrats in thenew tries, notonlyamong indigenous peoples whohavelongharbored
coupledwiththelackofeffective
states, control
political overtheir deepanger because ofpastinjustices, butalsoin protest move-
performance, meansthatmostoftheseregimes haveexperiencedments bywomen andethnic (orracial) minorities whose members
ineffectivepublicadministration coupledwithanarchy, lawless- feelthat theyhavebeenvictimized. In public administration, this
ness,andwidespread poverty. Poverty becomesevenmoreunac- hasledtoa rising demand formorerepresentative bureaucracy,for
ceptablebecauseof theconspicuous extravagances ofwasteful therecruitment ofmore members ofminority groups andwomen
elites.
Revolts against thoseinauthority, whether ledbyrevolution-intothepublic services, andformoresensitivity inthemanage-
arymovements orbyethnonational haveundermined
activists, the ment ofpublic policies totheneeds ofmarginalized communities.
abilityofnominalrulersto rule,weakening theability ofquasi- Ofcourse, similar
pressures areexercised ongreat corporations and
states
togovern (Jackson, 1990).Nevertheless, bureaucrats (includ- nongovernmental associations whoseemployment practices are
ingmilitary officers) whoareseriously threatened bysuchmove- increasingly vulnerable tocharges ofdiscrimination andprejudice.
mentsarecapableof organizing revolts and seizingpowerbya
coupd'etat.Sincea military-led bureaucracy lackspolitical legiti-
macyandhastorelyon force tostayinpower, itpermits abusesin
Summary
publicofficethataggravate thegrievances of all communities, Togeneralize aboutsomeoftheimplications ofmodernity for
including cultural majorities as wellas ethnicminorities, therebypublicadministration andbureaucracy, consider thesethree
making badsituations evenworse. hypotheses:
Although greatvariations between statescanbe found, inmost 1. Maladministration. Badmanagement linked with industrial-
ofthenewregimes government bureaucracies areviewedas arro- ization (thefirstlegofmodernity) leadsto disorder, hostility
gant,oppressive, and inefficient, bothas classenemies and,per- toward andthecollapse
elites, ofgoodgovernment.
hapsevenmorepainfully, as members ofdominant ethnic minori- 2. Bureau Power. Bureaucratic domination, a widespread corol-
ties.No doubttherearemanyexceptions, andsomeofficials in lary ofmaladministration, promotes anarchy andblocks democra-
everybureaucracy arepublic-spirited menand womenwhodo tization (thesecond legofmodernization).
theirbestto servethepublicdespite allobstacles. Nevertheless, to 3. Authority. Statenationalism builtthefoundation for
theextent thatnegative practices andperceptions prevail,appoint- widespread acceptance ofpopular sovereignty inmodern democra-
ed officials
fueltheangerfeltbymembers ofdiverse communitiescies,buttheriseofethnic nationalism is noweroding public
and provoke activists amongthemto leadresistance movementsauthority. Thusoneofthethree pillarsofmodernity hasbecome
andrevolts. In multinational countries, someethniccommunitiesitsenemy. Moreexplicitly, nationalism validated theright ofthe
havecomeincreasingly toviewothergroups as enemies, especiallysecularized statetoappoint officials
vested withtheauthority to
thosewhoholddominant positions in thestateanditsbureaucra-administer publicpolicies, toenforce thelaw,tocollect taxes,to
cy.Moreover, tothedegree thattheyareunabletoexercise effectivemaintain security,andtoperform many other necessary public
administrative control overthepopulation orto provide necessaryfunctions. Bycontrast, ethnic nationalism challenges theauthority
publicservices, anarchy, crimes, ethnonational revolts,andrefugee ofstates andtheir officeholders. Itencourages revolts againstpub-
movements seemto be theinescapable consequences ofcollapsed licofficials and,byundermining their authority,itenhances law-
modern empires. lessnessandthespread ofviolence.
Thisthird
aspect
needs
special
emphasisasweapproach
a new
Perversity
ofModernization millennium
inwhich endemic
localized
violence
duetoethnic
in weakstateswilllikelybecomeincreasingly
nationalism perva-
Sinceall modernempiresproclaimedtheirsupportforthethree sive,replacing
themacrolevel
violence
between
contendingempires
basicvaluesofindustrialism,
democracy,and nationalism,
butwere thathascharacterized
therecentpast.Duringthelasttwo cen-

352 PublicAdministration
Review* July/August
1997,Vol.57,No. 4

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.203 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 00:34:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 all thesuccessor statesgenerated bythecollapseofthemodern
Underlying the manifestationsofmodernity in empires (communist as
be feltin theheartlands
well as butitsimpactcanalso
capitalist),
of theseempires, includingour own
bureaucracy andpublic administration that canbe country.
My concluding observation, therefore,is thatunderlying the
attributedtoindustrialism anddemocratization, thereisa manifestations ofmodernity in bureaucracy and public
administra-
tionthatcanbe attributed to industrialism anddemocratization,
thereis a thirdformthatundermines thelegitimacy ofthestate
thirdform that undermines the legitimacyofthe state
and putsall of itsappointedofficials in jeopardy. Theymust
increasinglyfightnotonlytoperform their official butthey
duties,
andputs allofitsappointed injeopardy.
officials mustalsostruggle tojustify theirright to do whattheyaredoing.
turies,industrialization and democratization reinforced state No doubtefforts tomakebureaucracy morerepresentative (e.g.,by
nationalism-well bytheprocesses
illustrated ofAmericanization appointing morewomenandmembers ofethnic minoritiesandby
whereby largenumbers ofimmigrants cametoacceptthemselves as treating thembetter) willbequitehelpful.
citizens
patriotic andloyalAmericans. Thenotionthatpublicoffi- However, I believetheunderlying crisisofauthority hasmuch
cialswouldservethebestinterests ofthenation(anditsmanysub- deeperroots.It reflects thepervasive impactof thedarksideof
units)gainedwidespread acceptance. modernity as it manifestsitself, increasinglyandglobally, in ugly
The growing distrust ofgovernment andantibureaucratic atti- andinescapable forms. Becauseofthespreadofethnicnational-
tudesmademanifest duringtheelectoralcampaigns of 1996were ismat theexpense ofstatenationalism, thetasksfacedbypublic
highlighted by the overtantigovernmental hostilityof the administrators willincreasingly becomepoliticized, notin the
"Freemen" inMontana, whoforso longconfronted theFBI orthe sensethattheirinfluence on publicpolicieswillgrow-whichit
morerecent standoff withtheabortive "RepublicofTexas."Anti- wellmay-butrather in thedeepersensethattheirauthority to
Americanism is alsogrowing amongmarginalized ethniccommu- administer eventhe mostwidelyacceptedpolicieshas been
nitiesand theindigenous peopleswhosemembers feelalienated undermined. This is a graveimpactof modernity on public
fromAmericaand claimsovereignty forthemselves. A growing administration and bureaucracy throughout theworldtoday.It
floodofrefugees andillegalimmigrants willincreasinglystrainthe strains theviabilityofconstitutional democracy andhampers the
resourcesofpublicadministration andheighten thefears ofalien- capacityof bureaucracies to managetheincreasingly complex
atedreactionariesandprotofascistswhoseviolent reactionswillfur- problems of an industrializing world-twootherdimensions of
therexacerbatethisproblem. ourmodern worldsystem thatmustalso be takenintoaccount
The American caseis notexceptional, however. Comparable whenwe considerthepoliticsof modernity and bureaucratic
beliefsnowpermeate theworld,wherean escalating number of power.
ethnicnationsareorganizing themselves to demandsovereignty
and to challenge theauthority of thestate(or states)in which FredW Riggsis a professor emeritusofpublicadministration
theirmembers live.Thisaspectofmodernization is strongestin attheUniversity ofHawaii.

References
Jackson, Sovereignty,
Robert(1990). Quasi-states: and Riggs,FredW. (1964). Administration
Relations,
International in DevelopingCountries:
TheTheoryof
theThirdWorld. New York:Cambridge UniversityPress. Society.
Prismatic Boston:HoughtonMifflin.
Polanyi,Karl,ConradM. Arensberg, and HarryW. Pearson(1957). Trade (1994). "Ethnonationalism, and theModernState."
Industrialism
andMarkets Glencoe,IL: FreePress.
in EarlyEmpires. ThirdWorldQuarterly 15 (4): 583-611.

WaldoSymposium:
Modernity
andBureaucracy 353

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.203 on Wed, 11 Jun 2014 00:34:40 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions