Ba llb 3rd semester notes pdf Political Science III Public Administration
Ba llb 3rd semester notes pdf Public Administration Bureaucracy
Ba llb 3rd semester notes pdf
BUREAUCRACY: MEANING AND CHANGING CONCEPT OF BUREAUCRACY
Q.1 Define the term “Bureaucracy and discuss the changing concept of Bureaucracy and changing concept of Bureaucracy.”
Ans. Hans Rosenberg has rightly observed that “for good or evil, an essential part of the present structure of governance consists of a far-flung system of professionalized administration and its hierarchy of appointed officials upon whom society thoroughly depends Whether we live under the most totalitarian despotism or in the most liberal democracy, We are governed to a considerable extent by a bureaucracy of some kind.”
Bureaucracy has emerged as a dominant feature of the contemporary world. Virtually everywhere in public or large private organizations, developed or developing nations bureaucratic structures are a universal phenomenon. Economic, social, and political life is extensively influenced by bureaucratic organizations. Indeed, even the transmission of knowledge and culture has often become bureaucratized and to the extent that the world itself is organized, its organizations are largely bureaucratic. Nowhere has the tendency towards bureaucratization been greater than in the realm of governance.
“Bureaucracy” is a perplexing term and has been subjected to many different definitions. It is used variously to identify an institution or a caste, a mode of operation an ideology, a view of viewing and organizing society, a way of life, a social category, etc. The term bureaucracy appears to have begun its career to describe a government by officials. Vincent de Gourncy is said to have coined the term in 1745. From the start, its use appears to have been pejorative and its focus to have been on government officials. It was seen as a form of government by officials, characterized by its tendency to meddle, to exceed its proper functions. An 1813 edition of a German dictionary of foreign expressions defined bureaucracy as “The authority or power which various government departments and their branches aggregate to themselves over fellow citizens.”
In 1835 Henry Monnier portrayed a day in the life of bureaucrat: “at nine O’clock the employees arrive at the ministry and warm themselves around an excessively hot stove at ten they have tea and sharpen their quills; at ten-thirty they chat, at one they have lunch; at two they go for walks inside the ministry. the only time they work is midday when the head of their makes his tour of inspection.” Bengt Abrahamsson says that bureaucracy has been identified with either of the following seven divisions state administration, group of officials, administrative autocracy, rational organization, organizational inefficiency, modern organization, or modern society. He observes that the concept of bureaucracy is multisided. It is used as a summary term for a category of persons with special administrative tasks, as specific (form) of organization, and polemically and pejoratively as a criticism of certain trends in modern society.
Laski applied the term bureaucracy for a system of government the control of which is so completely in the hands of officials that their power jeopardizes the liberties of ordinary citizens. The term has caused so much controversy and confusion that some scholars are of the opinion that the only reasonable approach is to avoid the use of the term bureaucracy while pursuing research in the areas in which it has been employed.
Changing Concept of Bureaucracy
Bureaucracy continued to be understood in the manner described above through the 19th century. But conceptions began to emerge which recognized that there are differences other than those of power and size between groups of officials and modes of organization. One of the most important of these conceptions “transfers attention from officials as a social group to the mode of organization of the institutions in which they serve. This use of bureaucracy is important as a forerunner of the widespread 20th-century habit of applying the terms ‘bureaucracies’ or ‘bureaucratic to institutions rather than to the officials employed in them; the latter is thus called bureaucrats as much because they work in the institutions as because they are members of a social group.” As will be shown in the definitions of bureaucracy that follow, it is the mode of organization that is being emphasized by modern scholars.
It was Max Weber, a German sociologist who gave the modern concept of bureaucracy. He Never defined Bureaucracy in the explicit way in which he defined “class” or ‘status group’. He regarded Bureaucracy as a universal social phenomenon and the means of caring “community action” over into rationally ordered ‘societal action’. He outlines the characteristics of the ‘ideal’, type (see later the characteristics of bureaucracy ) from the functional point of view. Some of these characteristics are structural and other behavioral. He used the word Bureaucracy not to refer disparagingly to Rule By official, but to designate a quite specific kind of Administrative organization. He insisted that modern bureaucratic organization as a form of apparatus was sui generis.
Marshall E. Dimock identified Bureaucracy with Institutions and large-scale Organisations in society. For him “Bureaucracy is the state of society in which institutions overshadow individuals and simple family relationships; stage of development in which division of labor, specialization organization hierarchy, planning and regimentation of large group of individuals either by voluntary or involuntary method, are the order of the day… Bureaucracy is simply institutionalism written large. It is not some origin foreign substance that has been infused into the life-blood of Institutions; it is merely the accentuation characteristics found in all. It is a matter of degree of the combination of component, and relative emphasis is given to them.” John A. Vieg Says in free translation means ‘desk government’ or Management by the bureaus. “It Denotes the sum total of the personal apparatus and procedure by which an Organisation manages its work accomplishes ads proposes. The organization may be public or private governmental commercial educational ecclesiastical but if it is of any size, it must be Bureaucracy in this sense.
For prof. Charles Hyneman, bureaucracy is a big organization. “I prefer to say that Bureaucracy is the word for the big organization”. He considered it big enough to bureaucratic if one has to search for finding out who is making its policies its policies and procedures are written out, or think it takes too long for one part to find out what another part proposes to do. A similar definition but laying greater emphasis function aspect is given by Peter M. Blau and Marshall W. Mayer. They define Bureaucracy as an “organization designed to accomplish the large-scale administrative tasks by systematically coordinating the work of many individuals”. The structural view of Bureaucracy as an organization was taken by Arthur K. Devis. He used the term for denoting “an integrated hierarchy of specialized offices defined by systematic rules -an impersonal routinized structure wherein legitimatized authority rests in the office and not in the person of the incumbent.”
Another definition of bureaucracy is that it is “a hierarchical organization of officials appointed to carry out certain public objectives.” A three-dimensional view of bureaucracy is given by Bata K. Dey. From
the structural aspect is value-neutral – “neither hero nor villain”, it can be treated as a phenomenon associated with any large-scale, complex organization. From the behavioral angle, bureaucracy may be thought of as showing some functional or pathological symptoms. From the achievement or purposive point of view, it can be regarded as an organization that maximizes efficiency in administration or an
institutionalized method of organized social conduct in the interests of administrative efficiency.
Q. 2. Discuss the functions role and Importance of Bureaucracy.(BA LLB)
Ans. After independence, though the system of bureaucracy continues to exist in the same shapes as it was established by the British, it functions in a context that is, in some fundamental respects, different
from that of the British colonial rule. It has now to function under democratic political leadership and operate within the framework of responsible cabinets, questioning legislatures, ever political parties, and highly demanding pressure groups. It has to be sensitive to the policies laid down by the cabinets and legislatures, the values and purpose parties and groups. The constitutional commitment to an egalitarian value and state and its planned development in the political colonial situation also called for the bureaucracy to assume an autonomous economic role euphemistically to promote egalitarianism, influence income distribution, and alleviate poverty.
In view of this and important consequence of the critical decision to opt for the continuity of the old administrative system was the constant demand that the administrators change their outlook and bring changes in the administrative culture to suit the new situation of democracy and planned development. The expectation was that a change of heart would occur and the individual bureaucrat would reorient himself from the colonial outlook and transfer his loyalty to a democratically elected political apparatus. Kuldip Mathur suggests that to a certain extent, there, expectations were fulfilled; dụring the days of partition, the administrators were fully committed to working for the unity and integrity of the country when it was threatened the most. But that was a situation of an extraordinary nature. However, with regard to administrative the ethos of being rules, there was little change. And in many ways, it continues to be so. In some respects, it has become reinforced as a result of the decline in the quality of secondary and higher education and the increase in the severity of competition among the growing mass of the half-educated for a limited number of government jobs. Hence, despite the development-mindedness of many of the newly-recruited top-level administrators and the capacity is shown by some of the older ones to take on new and unfamiliar tasks, together with some rather half-hearted attempts to implement the impeccable recommendations of innumerable administrative reforms commissions, both central and state, the administration remains, to a remarkable extent, stuck in its pre-Independence posture. This is the despair of the social and economic planners, who are always proclaiming, although with decreasing hopefulness the urgent need to gear up the administrative machine so as to make it a more efficient instrument for the attainment of their goals.
The deadweight of tradition is felt from the top to the bottom of the administrative hierarchy. For instance, the organization of the secretariat was, both at the center and in the states, the most vital
of administrative decisions are taken, is not substantially different from what it was in the British days, except to the extent thạt with the expansion of government functions, particularly in the field of social
and economic development, it has become more cumbersome and complicated. Aloofness from ordinary people is generally said to be characteristic, not only of the ICS-IAS but of administrators generally. There has been little change in the actual style, except to the extent that administrators at all levels have, of necessity acquired the habit of treating elected politicians with at least outward respect.
On the other hand in the framework of planning the necessity of “development administration” or “welfare bureaucracy” has justified an enormous growth and proliferation of bureaucracy. Thus the quantum of total employees in the administration has increased manyfold in the last four decades. The Indian civil services are one of the largest in the world in terms of its size, spatial spread, multilevel operation, and sectorial penetration. The expansion of public bureaucracy has been accompanied by a proliferation of government regulations, both social and economic in nature.
These increases both in number on personnel and regulations, rather than becoming instruments of change and development, in fact, have proved to be hurdles in the task. It is pointed out that of the many variables affecting the implementation of planned goals perhaps the most significant is the bureaucratic machinery, whose function is to translate planned goals into action. The non-implementation of land ceiling acts involving social and economic principles of agrarian reform is due to the fact that the administrative machinery particularly at the lower levels which is responsible for the implementation of all legislative measures is either lethargic or indifferent or hostile or corrupt. Of course for the failure of land reforms, the bureaucracy cannot be squarely held responsible. In many cases, non-implementation is due to a lack of political will in the corridors of powers. Yet the role of administration, in this regard, remains significant.
There are several reasons as to why changes in styles have been more than very gradual. An obvious one is the fact that what is loosely termed casteism in the administration is constantly stimulated and
sustained and is still the predominant feature of the whole social order. Another is to be found in the recruitment of the IAS (and, to a considerable extent, in the other superior services both at the center and in the states) from a very narrow social stratum. As has been mentioned above, typically, the top administrator comes from an urban family which enjoys something that approaches a western standard of living and has at least some of the elements of a western outlook. When to all this is added a need for proficiency in English, as the main all-India language for mutual communication among the educated, it is clear that one has a public service which at least in its higher echelons, is hardly more
representative than it was in the British days. Given the actual distribution of both opportunities and expectations, it is inevitable that this should be so.
Another factor is compartmentalization. Various departments and organizations have been created to deal with the various aspects of the administration. The separate services, with their wide disparity in pay scales, have become rigid and self-conscious “classes” and have stimulated jealousies and resentment. According to Paul Apple by “there is too much and too constant consciousness of rank, class, title and service membership, too little consciousness of membership in the public service, and too little consciousness turning on particular job responsibilities. Various services do not co-operate with each other. They sometimes operate under a cloak of secrecy in a situation that often requires openness, consultation, and coordination.
Further, the prevalence of formalism has served to stifle bureaucratic initiative and imagination. The procedure involves what Appleby has called “the hierarchical movement of paper.” Unwilling to accept responsibility even for minor decisions, petty bureaucrats refer the files, nearly tied in “red tapes”, to a higher level. In India, it is said, “the British introduced red tape, but we have perfected it. “Responsibility is diluted in delay and inaction. “Red tape becomes a technique of self-preservation”, writes Kothari, “and reverence for traditional forms is matched only by an attachment to a strict routine and unwholesome preoccupation with questions of accountability,” Appleby argues, that it is not a question of too much hierarchy, but rather that there is an irregular hierarchy, disjointed and impeding effective communication.
One major element in the effective operation and in the public image of bureaucracy is corruption. Corruption may be greatly exaggerated in India. According to some commentators, administrative
corruption is almost unavoidable in developing societies, where the Western-type bureaucratic norms have not become fully, internalized, and when the social system is such that the distinction between corruption and loyalties associated with caste, community, and extended family cannot easily be made. It is also argued that economically frustrated individuals seek a scapegoat in official misbehavior. But as A.D. Gorwala argues, “the psychological atmosphere produced by the persistent and an unfavorable comment is itself the course of further moral deterioration, for people will begin to adopt their methods, even for securing the legitimate right to what they believe to be the tendency of men in power and office. Moreover, the public may decry corruption, but traditional attitudes often condone it and fatalism, may lead many to accept it as condone it and fatalism, may lead many to accept it as inevitable. Nepotism is officially condemned, but in traditional terms, it may be viewed as loyalty to one’s family, friends, and community. Particularly when corruption is so prevalent at the political level, the scope for corruption at an administrative level, where the power of a public servant far exceeds his income is much greater.
It, thus becomes clear that the civil service has to undergo radical structural, procedural and attitudinal changes if it has to serve as an effective instrument of change and progress in a developing society. The civil service has to cultivate much wider social awareness and responsiveness, as well as social base apart, from the traditional virtues of integrity, functional efficiency, and a sense of fair play and impartiality. But the bureaucracy does not function in a vacuum. Particularly in democratic setup functions in the context of the political process.(BA LLB)
Bureaucracy and Politics It has been pointed out that in the political-administrative system we have opted for in the constitution, there is a role for the political side and equally, one for the administrative.
It is at the interface between the two sub-systems the questions of relationship arise. If both subsystems are in a state of health their relationship with each other cannot but be healthy, imperative, and related. But if both are sick their relationship is bound to be sick too, and that, unfortunately, is the case today.
In 1947 India became a republic, casting aside the autocratic monarchical doctrines and administrative state of king emperor and viceroys. A democracy, where for the first time the political masters; those who would represent and govern, chosen on the basis of universal suffrage, in welfare and socialist state, committed not only to economic growth and self-reliance but also social justice and national power were made responsible to people. With the passage of time, there has been a marked increase in the change propensity of the people. The urban section, particularly, is prone to changing the government for better and timely services. Even the rural people, of late, are displaying much more desire to participate in local political activities simply because of the desire to extract real benefits from the government. This has led to a power struggle between the elected representatives and the bureaucracy of deciding key political issues relating to development administration. The bureaucrat, on the one hand, claims the sole authority to determine and administer the various governmental programs. On the other hand, the political leaders take a stand that they alone are the representatives of the people and thus know, what is desirable, suitable, and acceptable to their people.
The civil servants have expressed that they are prepared to do their best but are prevented from discharging their functions because of political interference. They find that particularly after the introduction of the Panchayati Raj “Political Pull” had increased. Political interference in matters of appointment, promotion, and transfer, and charges of favoritism, nepotism, and corruption against the political leadership have been some of the most important factors causing frustration among the bureaucrats. It is also pointed that whereas in parliamentary democracy the ultimate responsibility for policies rests with the minister and not with the civil servants, in case of detection of error or anomaly in policy formulation and decision making the entire responsibility is thrown upon the bureaucrats. It is easy for the political leaders to blame the bureaucrats for their own ignorant or negligent or otherwise motivated actions.
In the initial years of planning, criticism of bureaucracy for failing at development tasks was muted. Nehru provided an optimistic future and a stable political environment. ICS and the IAS were considered Nehru’s allies. But the situation changed drastically after his death. The congress party, while continuing at the center, was considerably weakened and many states went out of its control. After the Congress split in 1969, issues of the inability of the bureaucracy to implement socialist goals of the party were brought to the top of the political agenda, and the doctrine of neutrality was challenged. Neutrality was what had helped the British civil service to transfer its allegiance to the new state.
The Congress party demanded a committed civil service and now argued that the present bureaucracy under the orthodox and conservative upper-class prejudices can hardly be expected to meet the requirements of social and economic change along socialist lines. A national debate began and civil servants actively participated to defend themselves. The civil service gained a political image, but significantly, no drastic restructuring was done. From then, on, however, the civil service was
no more faceless.
The political role of civil servants was further identified by the Shah commission while inquiring into the excesses of the Emergency during 1975-77. Some senior civil servants were clearly identified as owing allegiance to the congress party (read Mrs. Gandhi). Janata’s government further muddied the doctrinal waters. While it meant to restore the doctrine and practice of neutrality the Janata government favored not just upright professionals but also those committed to its own people and measures. Some of its ministers confused good ends with partisan advantage and correct procedure with victimization. When
Mrs. Gandhi returned to power in-1980, her party government restored to office and favor those whom Janata had found most unsuitable. As heroes victims, all three doctrines – neutrality, commitment, and loyalty–had to be reargued in the light of the transformed historical context.
In 1986, the Rajiv Gandhi government introduced measures to address the professional quality of the services and insulate them from inappropriate political pressures. Many of these measures were based on recommendations of the Administrative Reforms Commission of 1966. The government proposed to prevent frequent transfers of officers, to protect them against appropriation by local interests to encourage specialization, and to break the monopoly of the IAS on the highest positions by opening alternative recruitment channels to high-quality candidates from technical services and the non-government sector. This experiment, however, was short-lived and soon bureaucrats were told to be complaisant. In this, some civil servants, who in the earlier regimes have tasted the blood by being closer to political leadership, also played an active role. Now the change of administrators with the change of party, particularly at the state level, has become normal behavior. The result, according to Kuldip Mathur, is that, while little restructuring of administration has taken place, the values of neutrality and impartiality, which were considered the identifying characteristics of the bureaucracy, have become tarnished. In actual practice the commitments being degenerated to compliance which has resulted in the increasing politicization of the administration. The politicization has been the result of a relentless pursuit of political power at a cost, if necessary, of the existing norms and standards of politico-administrative relationship, Often the political leaders have sought to preserve their power by controlling the apparatus. The politicization of administration has been a phenomenon of unprecedented character and has permeated all levels from the union cabinet down to the Gram Panchayat.
Q. 3. Discuss the main characteristics of Bureaucracy.(BA LLB)
Ans. Drawing on studies of ancient bureaucracies in Egypt, Rome, China, and the Byzantine Empire as well as on the more modern ones emerging in Europe during the 19th and early part of the 20th centuries Max Weber used an ‘ideal type’ approach to extract from the empirical world the central core of features that would characterize the most fully developed bureaucratic form of organization. These are :
(1) Each office has a well-defined sphere of competence with duties clearly marked off from those of other offices.
(2) Offices are ordered in a hierarchy; each lower office is under the supervision and responsibility of a higher one.
(3) Authority is restricted to official duties; beyond these, subordinates are not subject to their superiors; there is complete segregation of official activity from private life.
(4) Officials hold office by appointment (rather than by-election), and on the basis of a contractual relationship between themselves and the organization.
(5) Officials are selected on the basis of objective qualifications; these are acquired by training, established by examinations, diplomas, or both.
(6) Officials are set for a career: they are protected from arbitrary dismissal and can except to maintain office permanently; promotion is by seniority, achievement, or both.
(7) Officials are entirely separated from the means of administration, hence they cannot appropriate their positions.
(8) Activities are regulated by general, consistent, abstract rules, the generality of these rules requires the categorization of individual cases on the basis of objective criteria.
(9) Official duties are conducted in a spirit of impersonality without hatred but also without affection.
(10) A bureaucracy frequently has a non-bureaucratic head. While bureaucrats follow rules, he sets them. While bureaucrats are appointed, he usually inherits his position, appropriates it, or is elected to it.
Weber claimed that purely from a technical point of view, bureaucracy is capable of attaining the highest degree of rationality and effectiveness because of these features. It is also superior to any other
type of organization. Division of labor minimizes duplication of tasks and friction. Hierarchy facilitates central planning, coordination, control, and discipline. Employment on the basis of qualifications makes for a higher level of knowledge and more competent work. Rules not only save effort by standardization but also eliminate the need to find a new solution for every individual problem.
They also spell the calculability of results. Impersonality promotes objectivity and prevents irrational action, favoritism and discrimination. The political head ensures non-rational commitment to rationality. Weber never claimed that all modern organizations possess all the aforementioned features. An organization not possessing several of these features is not a fully developed bureaucracy. The closer an organization comes to displaying these features, the more rational and effective it is likely to be.
Some other views on Features of Bureaucracy
Anthony Downs favors the inclusion of two more features.
(1) The organization must be large. He considers the organization large if the highest-ranking members therein know less than half of the other members.
(2) The major proportion of its output is not directly or indirectly evaluated in any markets external to the organization by means of quid pro quo transactions. Victor Thompson, on the other hand, reduced the characteristics to only two:
(1) a highly elaborated hierarchy of authority which is superimposed upon,
(2) a highly elaborated division of work. Ferrel Heady believes that a public organization can reasonably
be regarded as bureaucratic when the following features are found in it:
(2) differentiation or specialization, and
(3) qualification or competence.
R.H. Hall described six important features of bureaucracy which are cited by several authors. These are:
(1) a functionally specialized division of labor;
(2) an explicit hierarchy of authority;
(3) rules which describe the duties and rights of officials;
(4) a set of standard operating procedures;
(5) impersonal relations between officials;
(6) employment and promotion based on technical merit.
Elements of Bureaucracy Explained
In a bureaucracy, work activities based on specialization are assigned to specific positions. Power and authority beginning at the top are delegated downward from each supervisor to his subordinates. Each
position has its own jurisdiction. There is a clear-cut division of work, competence, authority, responsibility, and other job components. The lowest level positions are grouped together and assigned to a higher office. In turn, each supervisory office is under the control of a higher one. Each official is accountable to his superior for his and his subordinates’ job-related actions and decisions. All are accountable to the highest official at the top of the pyramid-like organization. Thus the entire operation is organized into an unbroken, ordered, and clearly defined hierarchy.
To top official of the bureaucratic organization is chosen by election or succession since he occupies a political office that may have a limited tenure. All other officials, who are subordinate to him occupy non-political offices. They have professional qualities. Their selection for an appointment is based on their technical qualifications and experience which are measured through objective tests. They deal in an impersonal and formalistic manner in their relations with others and also in the execution of their official duties. The relationship between them and their organization is contractual. In the area of their official duties, they are subjected to authority and control. But in areas not related to their official duties, they enjoy considerable personal freedom. They are paid a fixed salary which is determined by the demands of the job, not by the person’s abilities.
Employment is usually the sole occupation of the officials. The work is a career with the permanence of tenure and pension rights. Promotion is based on seniority and/or achievement decided by the superiors. Dismissal is only for an objective and specific cause. Bureaucracy maximizes professional security.
Rules Regulations and Procedures
In a bureaucracy, decisions are governed by a consistent system of abstract rules, regulations, and procedures. The behavior of the officials is subject to systematic discipline and control. Large use is made of records and files. The use of coercion and power has to be strictly in accordance with the regulations of the organization. A bureaucrat seeks rationality, routine, objectivity, and consistency for his organization.
Legal Authority and Power
Authority and power, in Bureaucracy, rest in the institution or office. An individual holds an office. The power he exercises is legitimatized in the office i.e. the power does not personally belong to the official, it is a part of the office. Since the office has been selected on the basis of his technical ability, he exercises influence because of his expertise.
Hierarchy of Authority, division of labor, and system of rules constitute structural characteristics, and impersonality, rationality, and rule orientation are behavioral features because they involve decisional and operational situations.
BA LLB 3rd semester notes pdf- Public Administration Bureaucracy