Jurriaan Bendien wrote: > Jim, > > A belated congrats on your birthday (this is obviously not an automated > message but a friendly human message).
thanks. > I think "administration" and "bureaucracy" are not identical concepts. > "Bureaucracy" refers specifically to the reification of administration (i.e. > administration becomes an independent force) for the specific purpose of > asserting power. > > Ideologists equate public administration with "bureaucracy" insofar as it is > a expense or liability to business. But in fact more people are occupied for > more hours with administrative tasks external to the state apparatus. > > If therefore administration is simplistically equated with bureaucracy, then > the effect is that there is more bureaucracy in the private sector than in > the public sector. The names of institutions are arbitrary, not being evoked or created by the phenomena being described but instead by people, based on the social context, history, and the like. I really can't get my mind around the idea that "administration" and "bureaucracy" mean something different, perhaps because the terms have no obvious mnemonic difference. (On the other hand, I can tell a Bactrian camel from a Dromedary camel because the former has 2 humps (like a B) and the latter 1 hump (like a D).) The key is that in our society, some bureaucracies (e.g., the military hierarchy, corporate bureaucracies) are perceived as necessary and good by those with a lot of power (capitalists, etc.) and other bureaucracies (e.g., the Environmental Protection Agency) are seen as inefficient, "red tape," excessively restricting freedom, and simply bad. Note the phrase "by those with a lot of power." The goodness or badness depends on one's point of view and one's interests. Using the ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITTANICA's discussion as a start and rewriting it, we can state what I think represents Max Weber's definition of a "bureaucracy." > It involves highly developed specialization of tasks, with a precise and > detailed definition of the duties and responsibilities of each position or > office, with a "rational" and impersonal regulation of inferior-superior > relationships (rather than relying on family, kin, etc. relations). The most > important and pervasive characteristic of bureaucracy is the existence of a > system of control based on "rational" rules--that is, rules meant to design > and regulate the whole organization on the basis of technical knowledge and > with the aim of achieving maximum efficiency (here meaning attainment of the > bureaucracy's goals). > Accordingly, a bureaucrat (B) is not selected on the basis of such > considerations as family position or political loyalties but instead on > formal qualifications (diplomas, university degrees) that testify that the > applicant has the necessary knowledge to accomplish effectively his > specialized duties. B sees the job as a "career." It is not accepted on an > honorary or short term basis but instead involves climbing a hierarchy with > an elaborate system of promotion based on the principles of both seniority > and achievement. B usually receives a salary based not so much on individual > performance as on the status of B's position. B cannot sell the position or > pass it on to relatives. There is a clear-cut separation between the private > sphere and the bureaucracy in B's life. B's private property is sharply > distinguished from the "means of administration" that do not belong to B but > instead to whatever organization or individual owns the bureaucracy. < Following his method of describing the world using "ideal types" (models), Weber's view of bureaucracy was idealized, ignoring "red tape" and all that. In many ways, his description of a bureaucracy is as unreal as the NC economists' description of a competitive market. But the definition above gives us some idea of what bureaucracy involves, of what its top leaders would like it to be, and how a bureaucracy works when its attaining its goals well. If a bureaucracy is running well, it attains its stated goals. To my mind, a bureaucracy can be a good thing if it's subject to democratic control by the citizens or constituents. For example, labor union bureaucracy may be necessary, but it's only good if it's subject to the will of the rank and file members. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
