We may have heard people complain about bureaucracy; it’s slow, it’s frustrating, it’s confusing!
Because bureaucracy serves a central function in making and implementing public policy, it significantly affects people’s lives. However, most bureaucrats are not elected, leaving people without recourse to address their shortcomings. Not only does this lead to our bureaucratic system being targeted by political leaders, but it also contributes to the public’s distrust in the system — resulting in division.
But what is “bureaucracy,” exactly?
According to German sociologist and political economist Max Weber, bureaucracy is “a form of general organization characterized by […] rules and procedures that are applied […] by specialized agents.” In government, “bureaucracy” refers to organizations or institutions responsible for managing and implementing public programs and policies — often called “public administration.”
Recently, University of Washington Associate Professor Benjamin Brunjes wrote a piece titled From Patronage to Professionalism: The Evolution of the U.S. Civil Service System. It explores the history and evolution of the U.S. public administration, including the enduring tension between politics and public administrative agencies. His writing may explain the negative connotations associated with the word “bureaucracy.”
Contrary to popular belief, bureaucracy was intended to ensure process efficiency, according to Professor Brunjes. He quoted Weber in his piece: “Precision, speed, unambiguity, knowledge of 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.”
In the 19th century, during the early years of the American republic, public administrators or bureaucrats were mostly appointed by the president in a system called “patronage,” which means that “public service was essentially the reward given in a quid pro quo exchange between the executive and [their] backers.”
While Professor Brunjes detailed the problems associated with patronage, including corruption and incompetence, he also highlighted its benefits. In addition to being a powerful political tool, having trusted appointees likely improved the responsiveness of public administration. Since they were loyal to the president and shared similar goals, they were more likely to work toward the executive’s objectives. Consequently, political control over public administration might have led to greater government efficiency.
However, as urbanization took place in the U.S. during the Progressive Era in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, issues like crime, child labor, sanitation, and concentrated poverty began to rise. This required a more active government and more specialized roles and authorities, creating a higher need for skilled administrators with certain expertise. But that also led to the need for discretion to maintain efficiency. Professor Brunjes then argued, “The public must be given some reason to trust them and their ability to wield their discretion in the public interest.”
That trust required not only minimal corruption in government, but also the competence and responsiveness of public administrators. This indicates that there should be a “balance between political control and the effectiveness of the state” — referring to the idea that “elected officials would set the broad plans, and administrators, using their scientific training, would then implement those laws to the best of their abilities.”
Yet, that idea may be more idealistic than our current socio-political system can fulfill. Our public administration is closely linked to our political system — which relies on principles of accountability (e.g., checks and balances, the separation of powers, etc.) and may have values that conflict with scientific best practices. This may illustrate why “bureaucracy” is notoriously known for being slow, unresponsive, and complicated.
Additionally, because of that intricate relationship, the public’s distrust in bureaucracy may deepen when issues are politicized, exacerbating divides among people. Without a shared belief in the legitimacy of institutions, it becomes harder for diverse groups of people to agree on policies, or even to engage in thoughtful, solution-oriented discussions.
A recent example may include the public’s loss of trust in government health agencies and healthcare professionals during COVID-19, generating resistance to many public health measures. Dr. Anthony Fauci, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, received “credible death threats” stemming from his time overseeing the nation’s fight against COVID-19. Washington State Public Health Association Executive Director Megan Moore also reported that local health officers faced death threats during the pandemic.
Mainstream news media and social media play a role in this issue. People who distrust the government and its institutions may turn to social media or other news sources that reinforce their pre-existing biases, fostering echo chambers and making respectful discourse more difficult to accomplish.
To this day, there is no precise answer to the question of how we can achieve “balance between political control and the effectiveness of the state” due to the constant tension between them. These multiple layers in bureaucracy eventually contribute to the notion that our bureaucratic system is slow, unresponsive, and complicated. In the meantime, polarization remains consistently high, making it challenging to improve the public’s trust in our institutions.
Therefore, it is increasingly important to remain engaged in the process of policymaking. Given that the president and their administration influence bureaucratic priorities, Professor Brunjes asserted, “Key support for many public programs comes directly from the citizens who elect leaders.” He also quoted former President Woodrow Wilson in his piece: “The ideal for us is a civil service cultured and self-sufficient enough to act with sense and vigor, and yet so intimately connected with the popular thought, by means of elections and constant public counsel.”
By being engaged civically, not only will we be able to influence the development and implementation of public programs, but also to understand the intricacies of our bureaucratic system. Maybe, then, bureaucracy will seem less confusing and frustrating. And as a result, we will be able to develop more trust in our institutions, creating an environment where people can build bridges across their differences based on, at the very least, a shared respect for our bureaucracy.
And that is a vision that the Project for Civic Health strives to accomplish.
To learn more about the history of the U.S. bureaucratic system, including arguments for and against political control over public administration, and bureaucracy’s complex relations with politics, please read Professor Benjamin Brunjes’ full essay here.