Custom term paper on Government Essay

Government Essay Set #2
Ginsberg, Lowi and Weir also argue “that we have to look more closely at what papers are being shuffled and why.” They admit obliquely that bureaucrats posses the political capacity of discretion through rule-making and administrative adjudication. With respect to the usage of political power, beyond an instrumental interpretation, what is the significance of constitutive thinking and action applied to bureaucrats? Focus on Kerwin and Cook in your analysis, and include Simon, and Lindbloom.

Organization’s ability to function effectively depends on the structure of authority. The power consistent with the spirit of the time gives the manager the levers of control necessary to provide the organizational work with the rational-bureaucratic form. Legal and rational authority has the priority over other types of control (like bribery or favoritism) as the basis of corporate activities and decision-making. Bureaucracy is not just a technical tool; it is also a social force with its own principles and values, and causes the social consequences that go beyond its technical achievements. As a group possessing power it can influence the objectives of the political system; as the status layer it provides a subconscious effect on the goals of the entire society.
On the other hand, if earlier the debate on democracy focused on the question of the lack of legitimacy of the rule of bureaucracy, today, the discussion unfolds around the problem more actively perceived by the public, namely, the inefficiency of the bureaucratic type of activity in the solution of in-organizational problems.
In currently changing requirements for production and planning management, the focus exclusively on management as an essential principle of bureaucratic activity is the main reason for the inability of the administrative apparatus to innovate. This is also true in the aspect of internal criticism of the bureaucracy – its hierarchical organizational principle excluding any initiative, as well as the fragmentation of competence structures in bureaucratic systems.
According to Page, modern Western states continue showing the trend to establishing the “authority of bureaucrats”. But in general, in a democracy, this trend is constrained by existing mechanisms of control over the activities of the administrative apparatus. However, according to some authors, parliamentary control over the state apparatus is not always sufficiently reliable.
Meanwhile, modern Western scholars point to the serious problems faced by the political regimes in many developing countries, attempting to limit the powers and privileges of state officials. Any actions of the government, which hurt the interests of the bureaucracy, cause fierce resistance, and it usually forces the government to compromise with the officials rather than accept the serious costs associated with mass manifestations of sabotage, including the possibility of a putsch.custom term paper
The officials, especially high-ranking ones, often act as advisers in policy making. And since they usually have the advantage over the Minister, like knowledge and experience in their fields, their recommendations may be decisive in determining the content of policies. Ultimately, what should be done depends on what can be done, and on the consequences that a taken decision may have. Evaluation of such possibilities and consequences is included into the tasks of the officials, being one of the sources of their influence.
Several theories attempt to show that the influence is determined by certain tendencies inherent in the bureaucracy. However, one should distinguish the concepts of “bureaucracy” and “bureaucratism”. If the first word is used to designate a specific organization, a system of administrative apparatus (“rational bureaucracy”); standard and in many aspects and the only possible way of organizing activities in modern society, the second term is used in a negative sense, as the group monopoly on management functions and tools of authority (“irrational bureaucracy”); deviation from the norm, a worldwide disease. That’s why today there is an especially acute dual task: to preserve and strengthen the management apparatus capable of efficient operation, and simultaneously block the bureaucratism.
Bureaucratism, eventually grows into a system of bureaucratic power, based on the totality of formal and informal links of the officialdom with the state activity. This is a powerful, closed, hierarchically based, rigid mechanism of power, standing above the law and the will of the members of society. This power is transformed into a self-sufficient organization that operates basing only on its own interests, destroying the public welfare. The main characteristics of bureaucratism are alienation from the people and social isolation, caste indifference to the interests of the population.
Although rational bureaucracy invariably operates in accordance with objectively established legal norms, which define the limits of the jurisdiction of the management, within these limits the officials obtain a certain freedom of shunt. Ultimately, the supreme principle serving as a guide to all activities of state officials is a specifically modern and strictly objective idea of state interests. The notion of state interests is always pretty vague, which gives the officials who follow this abstract idea the opportunity in many cases to act at their discretion.
It is also necessary to distinguish between “official” and “politician” as two largely opposite types of statesman. The official must act in strict compliance with formal rules in one’s particular field of competence, not expressing one’s personal views and preferences. If the official only executes the orders and instructions from above, a politician must consistently pursue his own goals. At the same time he seeks in an open struggle to win the supporters of his political course. Actions of a political leader are determined by his own internal beliefs and the values that he stands for.
Types of “official” and “politician” are also opposing in a kind of responsibility they bear for their actions. If the superior institution insists on execution orders, the official’s duty is to execute it as if it were his own conviction. The official is not personally liable for the adopted policies. As for politician, he has to risk a career by defending his own course, and be ready to resign in the case of failure.
Officials have also an expressed interest in reduction of the power and value of any social forces beyond the control of the bureaucracy, and, on the contrary, in extending the influence of the managerial apparatus. According to Weber, the bureaucracy has great opportunities to successfully defend its interests. The decisive role in it is played by the authority that used the bureaucracy.
The authority of the administrative apparatus is based on the knowledge it possesses. This knowledge includes, first, special skills, in the broadest sense of the word, obtained during professional training. In addition, an official possesses the information that can be obtained only through administrative channels. As a contemporary German scholar B. Bruder noted in this regard, the special knowledge gained in the operation of public management (bureaucratic) apparatus, gradually acquires a tendency to turn into the knowledge of the methods and means of authority. Effective control over the activities of the officials is possible in this case only if there are sources of information, independent of the bureaucracy.
Thus, the bureaucracy in its most rational and impersonal form should represent no more than a management tool, which could be used by any head of the bureaucracy. But in practice, bureaucracy has its own interests and it own tendencies. Among these tendencies is the desire of the officials to expand the scope of their authority.

Works Cited:

Ginsberg, Benjamin, Lowi, Theodore J. and Margaret Weir. We the People: An Introduction to American Politics. 6th ed. W. W. Norton & Company, 2007.