A society is composed of people who live interactively in the same territory and share a similar culture. In most cases, individuals in a society share a common culture and have a common origin. The type of society determines the social practices practiced in society, that is, different communities exhibit different ways of survival. For example, different communities have different economic, religious, and political systems. Over the past years, societies have evolved from primitive forms of life to advanced lifestyles. This advancement in lifestyle has come about with changes in the former structure of society and has incorporated newer ways of living. However, Max Weber, along with other philosophers, argued that the modern methods of life posed challenges to human happiness and well-being.
In the past decades, a philosopher and capitalist named Max Weber became the first person to define bureaucracy and was also the first to use the term ‘bureaucratic’. According to his theory, bureaucracy refers to a formal organization. However, this organization is structured, and most of its activities may lack personality. This theory, closely to the Karl Max theory, studies the production of society in the economic sector. The features of bureaucracy include that there is a specialization of work. Work is administered depending on the individual’s field of best performance. Also, there are defined rules and regulations that are made known to all the employees working in the organization. These rules have consequences for breaking them. Another feature of bureaucracy is that there is a hierarchy in the organization. The members of the highest level execute the commands that run the organization. Impersonality exists in bureaucracy. This means that all employees and customers are treated in the same manner.
Bureaucracy has led to the transition of society from a primitive lifestyle to a more advanced lifestyle. However, some factors still leave room for criticism. For example, the rules in bureaucracy are inflexible as compared to the traditional way in which a leader distributed roles and could change them from time to time. Moreover, rules and regulations are overemphasized since non-compliance could lead to lower profits for the firm. Bureaucracy mainly deals with paperwork. This may be time-consuming, and a lot of resources could be invested to maintain the organization. During traditional societal work, people who work hard were recognized, however in bureaucracy, employees’ hard work and commitment are not recognized since they are all treated in the same manner, regardless of the dedication of individual employees. Moreover, similar to Karl Max’s theory, bureaucracy can lead to a society in which some people are extremely wealthy while others are extremely poor. This is because people who lack any recognizable skill in the organizations that hire employees will remain jobless and will, in turn, become extremely poor as those with the necessary qualifications earn a lot of income. This may cause an imbalance in the economic status of the society.
The bureaucracy theory by Max Weber explains the state of employment in the current society. This has led to great development in the current state of the economy. It has also promoted formal education since a lot of people study to acquire the skill and knowledge required in the job market. Employment leads to improved standards of living. Most people in the 21st century consider having a job in order to earn income to cater to their daily basic needs. Although bureaucracy has led to the improvement of the standards of living, it also has various limitations. The loss of employment opportunities has caused a lot of poverty in society. Bureaucracy has led to increased corruption in society as people compete for job vacancies.
To sum up, Max Weber’s theory of bureaucracy has been evident as society changed from primitive forms of survival to improved ways of survival. This theory, along with others, has a lot of impacts even in the current society, although they exhibit several limitations.
Bureaucracy theory was introduced by Max Weber, one of the greatest sociologists in the history of the early twentieth century. According to Max Weber, a bureaucracy is an administrative organization or system that enforces the rules of law in society. Bureaucracy is not only a rational system, but also an effective management system, and it has greatly promoted the industrialization of capitalism. On the one hand, bureaucracy meets the needs of complex industrial production models and management. It is better than some other types of social institutions in terms of accuracy, speed, and predictability (Weber & Andreski, Max Weber on capitalism, bureaucracy, and religion: a selection of texts, 1983). On the other hand, due to its impersonal and institutionalized features, it has been culturally recognized in the era of scientific rationality. Nevertheless, Weber claims bureaucracy has created an ‘iron cage’ dilemma. He believes that people are trapped by rationalization forces, such as control systems that chase efficiency and threaten people’s freedom. This article will introduce the three main attributes of bureaucracy and explain why Weber announced that it might become the ‘iron cage’ of humanity.
Key Characteristics of Bureaucracy According to Weber
In the first place, one characteristic of bureaucracy is the regular division of labor among participants. It clearly divides the responsibilities of each member in the company and fixes this division of labor in the structure of regulations. For example, if you want to apply for a course study at a university. There are lots of processes that you have to finalize. In the first place, you need to get some professional suggestions about course selection from the university advisement department. Then you need to choose your courses and register your personal details in the school system through the registration department. Next, you have to pay your tuition fee to the financial department. If you have trouble with money, you can also ask for financial aid. In the end, you will get the final confirmation from your course department. The university system is a very good example of division of labor. It basically divides work into small steps. Weber emphasized the relationship between specialization in the separation of labor and human reason in the organization (Weber, Economy, and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology., 1922). The practical significance of the division of labor is not only to improve efficiency but also to remove the personal privileges of a hierarchical society. Professional competence replaces personal allegiance. Powers and responsibilities belong to positions rather than individuals. These powers and responsibilities are fixed in the organization in the structure of legal systems.
The Hierarchical System of Power in Bureaucracy
Another significant feature of bureaucracy is a hierarchical system of power. The positions in the bureaucratic organization form a pyramid-shaped hierarchy according to the power level and the ‘command-obedience’ relationship. At the bottom, pyramid are all the employees, and above that, there are supervisors and managers, and finally, on the top, it is the big boss. This hierarchy is different from previous social stratification. Previous social stratifications, such as kings, nobles, and free people, were designed according to their status. Hierarchy in bureaucratic organizations is structured according to organizational power.
Impersonality and Indifference: Core Aspects of Bureaucracy
In the end, impersonality and personal indifference is also very distinctive feature of bureaucracy. From Weber’s point of view, bureaucracy is a regulatory system, not an individual system. Therefore, bureaucracy is exclusive. The operation of the organization is not transferred according to the will of the individual and is not subject to the affection of the individual. Another expression of rationalization is impersonality (Lutzker, 1982). Bureaucracy changed personal attachment and personal loyalty in traditional societies. Bureaucrats accepted superiors’ orders and orders because they obeyed the laws and rules, not the charismatic appeal of the commander himself, or obeyed him because of his traditional status. Status is not subject to the social hierarchy determined by traditional customs. However, this bureaucratic organization, which completely excludes emotions, will turn the organization into a cold machine, which will cause human alienation (Maley, 2004). Weber also pointed out the shortcomings of bureaucracy, and he tried to explore the use of personal charm to correct the alienation of bureaucracy, but he did not finish the corresponding research.
The Dual Nature of Bureaucracy: Efficiency and Alienation
Even though bureaucracy obviously brings lots of benefits to society, some sociologists, including Max Weber himself, still hold a negative stand against bureaucracy. On the one hand, bureaucracy is the form, structure, and operating mechanism, manifested by highly rationalized laws, regulations, and institutions. Its rationality is a kind of instrumental rationality, which is specifically manifested as if it is a well-designed machine with a precise structural design so as to have a specific function of every component. The function is performed by the tight meshing and thread cooperation of all components. Therefore, efficiency is the core of bureaucracy, and legitimacy is the spirit of bureaucracy. First of all, bureaucracy centralize the authority and make organizing effective. In addition, it encourages specialization in jobs. These bureaucrats need to have professional skills to take the job. These undoubtedly increase efficiency for many organizations or companies. Such as the car manufactory assemble line. It is precise because of the bureaucratic system that each employee is corresponding for a small part of the work, and through the assembly line operation, the time required to manufacture a vehicle is greatly reduced. Also, any members of an organization act in accordance with this rule from the top leader of the organization to the ordinary staff. They obey the public rules, not individual actions, or personal preferences. This has a positive effect on breaking the strict hierarchy of the traditional agricultural world.
Specialization and Its Impact on Society and Individual Creativity
On the other hand, in the bureaucracy theory, efficiency is a very important part, it is all about order and organization. A very famous example was introduced by Henry Ford about building cars with an assembly line. In the assembly line system, each worker has a very specific task. One car is made by hundreds of workers but each worker only focuses on a very small part of the car. This is a very efficient way to build cars. You are able to make a huge number of cars with a very fast speed and pretty high-quality standard. In addition, the skill of each worker can be relatively low. Some workers only know how to put on the tires and some people maybe only have the capacity to bolt the engine to the frame. Other workers may be familiar with how to assemble the fuel tank in the car. This is the process of specialization. Weber claimed that the increasing specialization in their labor caused a negative impact on society. People could lose the spirit of creativity and enjoyment in their work (Paul J. DiMaggio, 2000). For example, a student enters the university to study engineering and his dream is to become a famous engineer, one day he can design a powerful car by himself. However, when he starts to study at the university, he has been told to study how to make a small component of the car. That is the need for a bureaucratic car manufactory. He needs to learn specific skills to get the job. During the process, he loses the spirit of creativity about how to design a car. Weber believes that the emergence of capitalism is the result of a process of rationalization, and rationalization is a process that must have occurred in human history.
The Iron Cage: Weber’s Critique of Rationalization and Its Consequences
However, the process of rationalization also brings another problem: the iron cage. When we enjoy the benefits and convenience that rationalization brings to us, rationalization also brings us greater restrictions and constraints at the same time. Hierarchy is a negative product brought about by rationalization, and it is the embodiment of a reasonable life. The characteristics of bureaucratization are the division of labor system, the hierarchical system, the conventional system, the initial system, and the instrumentalization. Under management, everything has become more and more regular and systematic than before, but relatively speaking, human freedom has become smaller. It was like living in an iron cage. People feel less control over themselves. Life becomes predictable without surprise (Mitzman, 1970). Weber argues that rationalization will extend beyond production and labor and go into our homes and daily life. For example, we always associate home life with intimacy, personal connection and love, and even sexuality. Weber thinks that specialization and rationalization will spill over into home life. Nowadays things like pornography and other online ways of experiencing sexuality what was a personal intimate endeavor are now simply a product that we can purchase. We are hedonists but we do not have the same personal relationship. In the past, we went back home in after work to enjoy our time with our family and our children, but nowadays we just sit back to watch a movie or play online games. We do not have the same level of human connection as we did in the past. Entertainment is a product rather than a source of relationships. Because rationalization is an inevitable process, the hierarchy of human beings is unavoidable, and we will lose the human quality (dehumanize) in the hierarchy (Baehr, 2001). It has become a tool of organization, the world has become too rational, the ultimate meaning is missing, and life lacks layers, which is exactly the problem facing society today.
Conclusion: Reevaluating Bureaucracy for a Human-Centered Approach
To sum up, Weber introduced the idea of bureaucracy characterized as a fixed division of labor, hierarchical system of power, and impersonality. It does bring some merits to society, such as fixed division of labor and a hierarchical system of power establishing an effective system. Such as the example of the different university departments and the building car assembly lines. University helps the students solve different kinds of problems through different departments and a specific person. It obviously increases the efficiency and reduces the time of resolving students’ issues. The assembly line of car manufactory can not only rise the speed of car making but also can guarantee the good quality standard at the same time. Impersonality also reduces social injustice, and the people obey orders from superiors due to the rules rather than orders from nobles because of their social status. However, Weber was concerned about the impact that bureaucracy may bring. First of all, everyone in society is like a component of the huge machine mechanism. People keep repeating the same job day by day. They could lose their spirit of creativity gradually. People are forced to be specialized and learn some specific skills to get a job. Specialization will no longer be a matter of pride or personal satisfaction. Too much specialization will make humans lose their personal meaning. Then people will not feel connected with their jobs anymore. In the end, the excess of rationality restricts individuals’ minds. Weber’s ultimate fear was that the rationalization of bureaucracy will spill over into all aspects of our daily lives. In the iron cage, we will become less human and more like robots. We may simply fulfill the role both at work and at home without real human enjoyment or spirituality (Weber, ‘The Spirit of Capitalism and the Iron Cage,’, 1905). Weber’s analysis of bureaucracy and the iron cage is absolutely wonderful. However, his analysis relies too much on experience and ignores the requirement for the accumulation of economic facts. Bureaucracy should not be a management system that eliminates people but should be a people-centered system. It needs to highlight the subjectivity of people, and it needs to affirm the value of people and the role of human values. In this way, the objectivity and rationality of bureaucracy can transform into human subjectivity and moral priority, so that we can prevent the predicament of the “iron cage”.
A society is composed of people who live interactively in the same territory and share a similar culture. In most cases, individuals in a society share a common culture and have a common origin. The type of society determines the social practices practiced in society, that is, different communities exhibit different ways of survival. For example, different communities have different economic, religious, and political systems. Over the past years, societies have evolved from primitive forms of life to advanced lifestyles. This advancement in lifestyle has come about with changes in the former structure of society and has incorporated newer ways of living. However, Max Weber, along with other philosophers, argued that the modern methods of life posed challenges to human happiness and well-being.
In the past decades, a philosopher and capitalist named Max Weber became the first person to define bureaucracy and was also the first to use the term ‘bureaucratic’. According to his theory, bureaucracy refers to a formal organization. However, this organization is structured, and most of its activities may lack personality. This theory, closely to the Karl Max theory, studies the production of society in the economic sector. The features of bureaucracy include that there is a specialization of work. Work is administered depending on the individual’s field of best performance. Also, there are defined rules and regulations that are made known to all the employees working in the organization. These rules have consequences for breaking them. Another feature of bureaucracy is that there is a hierarchy in the organization. The members of the highest level execute the commands that run the organization. Impersonality exists in bureaucracy. This means that all employees and customers are treated in the same manner.
Bureaucracy has led to the transition of society from a primitive lifestyle to a more advanced lifestyle. However, some factors still leave room for criticism. For example, the rules in bureaucracy are inflexible as compared to the traditional way in which a leader distributed roles and could change them from time to time. Moreover, rules and regulations are overemphasized since non-compliance could lead to lower profits for the firm. Bureaucracy mainly deals with paperwork. This may be time-consuming, and a lot of resources could be invested to maintain the organization. During traditional societal work, people who work hard were recognized, however in bureaucracy, employees’ hard work and commitment are not recognized since they are all treated in the same manner, regardless of the dedication of individual employees. Moreover, similar to Karl Max’s theory, bureaucracy can lead to a society in which some people are extremely wealthy while others are extremely poor. This is because people who lack any recognizable skill in the organizations that hire employees will remain jobless and will, in turn, become extremely poor as those with the necessary qualifications earn a lot of income. This may cause an imbalance in the economic status of the society.
The bureaucracy theory by Max Weber explains the state of employment in the current society. This has led to great development in the current state of the economy. It has also promoted formal education since a lot of people study to acquire the skill and knowledge required in the job market. Employment leads to improved standards of living. Most people in the 21st century consider having a job in order to earn income to cater to their daily basic needs. Although bureaucracy has led to the improvement of the standards of living, it also has various limitations. The loss of employment opportunities has caused a lot of poverty in society. Bureaucracy has led to increased corruption in society as people compete for job vacancies.
To sum up, Max Weber’s theory of bureaucracy has been evident as society changed from primitive forms of survival to improved ways of survival. This theory, along with others, has a lot of impacts even in the current society, although they exhibit several limitations.
A government is the body through which a political unit exercises its power, controls policies and implements them. It also directs and controls the actions of its members. There are three main branches that constitute the Federal government of the United States. These are the legislative, judicial and executive. It carries out governmental power and functions.
The laws of the country are keenly enforced by the executive organ of the federal government while the judiciary plays the role of interpreting the laws that have been approved by the Congress. The United States is governed by a democratic form of government. The President is appointed in office through an electoral process in a free and fair polling process. Therefore, a democratically elected President is largely supported by the majority o the populace.
The federal government of the United States was formed in the eighteenth century, making it one of the first modern national federations in the world. This form of government has been debated ever since it was established and its constitution ordained. There are parties that often push for unlimited powers of the federal government while others are of the contrary view that the central government should not be given expanse powers in discharging its duties.
Two Non legislative functions of the Congress in Policy Making Process
Congress has other roles apart from these two non legislative ones that are being discussed in this chapter. It works with the President in discussing public policies before they are implemented by the bureaucrats. It is made up of senators and representatives who are chosen through a direct election (Cummings and Wise 426). Each of them represents a district and serves a term that goes for two years. Seats in the house are shared among the states by the public. It meets in the United States capital, Washington DC.
First it has the power to investigate and supervise the on goings in the executive. The Subpoena Power of the Congress is often charged with the duty of coordinating the various functions allocated to different committees.
There have been concerns about how congress oversees the executive actions. Some critics have accused the congress of not doing a good enough job in supervising the other arms of the government. In the Plame Affair, critics claimed that the Supreme law making body was not performing as expected in overseeing this case. The interaction between the Congress and the Executive has also been of a major concern.
For instance, the manner in which the Congress acts as watchdog on the executive decisions is paramount. It has always been the tradition of the Congress to oversee most policy matters endorsed by the executive to ensure that the latter does not go overboard in discharging its mandate The second non legislative role of the Congress is that it has the power of impeaching the incumbent and also removing other government officers from office, that is; federal judges and other federal officers.
The Congress has been influencing the Presidency in a variety of ways. Quite a number of factors account for this variance. For example, the leadership of the Congress as well as the political influence of the President when he or she is in office plays critical roles in the interaction between the Presidency and the Congress. The impeachment of Andrew Johnson reduced the power of the president compared to that of the congress for lengthy time after.
Five Principle Roles of the President
The President has five main roles that he plays: Head of State, Head of the executive, Commander in Chief, Chief Legislator and Chief Diplomat. The President also has other important duties, but these five are the main ones required expected of him by the Constitution of the United States.
The roles performed by the President go beyond mere legislation. Indeed, there are several ceremonial roles played by the President as a Chief Executive Officer of the country. He is the symbol of nationhood. Through this role the president can identify himself with the public which earns him respect with the people. He stands for the power of United States.
Being the Chief Officer in charge of the country, the president is the leader of the executive organ of the government. He is assisted by his staff where he assigns most of the work to the executive and to the independent regulatory bodies that work within the executive section.
The executive branch is considered to be a complex branch to run since the President has to cause the agencies and the bureaucrats implement his decisions and policies. In such times that he needs to have a strong sense of persuasion. As the Chief Executive, he also has the power to grant amnesty to those who may have offended the United States.
The President is also a Commander in Chief; he is therefore the leader of the military of United States. He has authority to order when missiles should be launched and for troops to be commissioned. The President delegates his power to the commander of the armed forces. He makes decisions on when the military forces should commence their mission.
However, the president does not have authority to declare war. There is however a constraint on his authority whereby he makes the decision then reports to the congress within a stipulated time.
He makes decisions on foreign policy and on how the United States should interact with other countries (Cummings and Wise 428). He has the advantage of having extra information that congress may not have (for example The State Department, Pentagon, CIA all report to the President).
He is the only one allowed to sign treaties after the Congress has approved. He also has the mandate to agree with other countries on executive matters. He has permission to acknowledge the validity of any other country. He has the power to use military to support his decisions as Chief Diplomat, an indication that sometimes his roles overlap.
As Chief Legislator, the President has a duty to sign laws and to pass programs that will benefit his country. This is a more difficult role as he faces opposition within the congress especially if many of them make up the opposing political party.
He uses his staff or liaisons to assist in persuading the congress to pass his programs. If he does not get votes on his bills he may threaten to veto their bills. Despite this, he has the responsibility to consider if the bills are good for the public even if he does not like parts of it. He has a duty to pass the bill with lines that he does not approve because it widely benefits the public.
Towards the end of the 20th Century, the Supreme Court denied the president the rights to veto lines that he did not agree with, in which he could veto parts of a bill instead of the whole document. He however has permission to call back congress into a session or to end the sessions if need be.
The above roles confirm that the President has a huge responsibility of ensuring the state is stable, united and secure. He also needs back up from his staff, the Congress and the bureaucrats.
How Bureaucrats Shape Policy
The perspective on ideology has the view that the first stages of a policy making agency are very important in determining its behavior.
The application of rules, control or even the use of officially documented authority to steer performance is all under what is referred to as bureaucratic control. It includes such details as budgetary allocation, preparation of reports, performance evaluation as well as regulating results. This is according to Max Weber, a German Sociologist.
In the government sector bureaucrats ensure that the decisions made by the governments are implemented. They communicate with one another, maintain accountability, interpret the law hence the implementation. Congress has delegated an expansive amount of authority to the federal bureaucracy by giving the agencies the power to draft federal regulations and to look into conflicts over these regulations. However, controlling the bureaucracy may be challenging because of a number of reasons.
The process of monitoring and supervising everyone or each operation in the bureaucracy cannot be done by the President alone owing to a lot of work involved. Second, the fact that the people who administer the policy often have more knowledge about issues compared to what the President knows, gives the bureaucrats power.
It is sometimes hard to fire bureaucrats even for incompetence and since many federal agencies provide services to a large number of people, they sometimes work together to defend the agencies. Finally in the policy implementation, the agency is the one that works on specifics after the Congress creates and passes a new program.
Some presidents view bureaucrats as a hindrance to getting their agenda approved, since they have to do a lot of lobbying and persuading. The manner in which operations of the federal programs should be handled and adhered to is greatly influenced by the federal bureaucracy.
The rule making happens in phases. To begin with, the Congress has to pass the new laws which are then scrutinized and eventually published in an official document. Those interested are allowed comment on the rules during public address or by forwarding their views to the agency. There are 60 days set aside for waiting by the agency after writing down the final regulations. Thereafter, the rules can then be reinforced through an implementation process. It is the duty of the Congress to ascertain that the rules are being implemented.
Theoretically, the due process of implementing the policies that have been endorsed by the Congress lies in the hands of the bureaucrats. Nonetheless, critics have quite often observed that the policymaking process in the federal government is largely influenced by bureaucrats
Theories on the Role of Government in the economy
It is known that consumers and producers make most decisions that build the economy. Nonetheless, the activities of the federal government on the economic performance of US fall into four main categories.
The entire rate of economic activities is determined by the federal government so as to ensure stability and growth in the country. In order tom achieve this, the government acts by adjusting the sensitive monetary policies such as the level of spending as well as taxation regimes. In addition, the amount of money in circulation is also regulated. This may improve or reduce growth in the economy. As a result, two important factors namely the level of employment and pricing mechanisms.
Since the 1930s the government has been working on regulating the economy through juggling between the fiscal policy and managing the money supply and controlling the use of credit. The fiscal policy was embraced between the 1960s and 1990s until the government experienced high inflation, unemployment and huge government deficits that caused the president and Congress to lose confidence in the fiscal policy. Hence, the Federal Reserve Board was charged with the responsibility of controlling all policies related to financial matters.
The private sector is regulated by the federal government in two major ways.. In price controls, it focuses on preventing monopolies like electric utilities and agricultural goods from exploiting consumers and gaining unreasonable profits. Consequently, there are quite a number of industries that decided to control prices having complained of unfair price cutting modalities.
On the other hand, the antitrust law aims at developing market forces that are formidable enough to avoid a situation whereby it is controlling the market in a direct manner. Further, both the public and private sector have at one time or another implemented this legislation to hinder or hamper what they refer to as total competition.
The government has equally regulated the private sector to adhere to some of the most important social objectives like marinating a healthy environment. However this decision by the government has been challenged over a number of years. This has resulted to the government relaxing the rules in the 1980s. They claimed that such business elements like liberalized enterprise were greatly hampered and as a result, it significantly contributed to poor economic performance due to elevated costs of running businesses.
The government provides direct services on every level ranging from providing the country with adequate territorial defense, giving support to research and development activities, carrying out exploration exercises through its appointed agents like NASA to implementing myriad of programs aimed at improving the working conditions of workers (Cummings and Wise 421). There are several ways through which the government assists small scale enterprises for instance through loans and technical aid.
It also provides loans to college going students thereby expanding their chances of acquiring skills that increase chances for them to get employed. It also encourages home lending where people get mortgage loans making housing affordable. It gives Social Security to individuals who have no means to adequately care for themselves which is financed by a tax on employers and employees.
In summing up, the government plays a big role in ensuring that its citizens are economically secure and comfortable. In as much as consumers and producers play an enormous role, the regulatory role of the government ensures that all is in check and that there is equitable distribution of resources.
Works Cited
Cummings, Milton C. and Wise, David. Democracy under Pressure: An Introduction to the American Political System. New York: Wadsworth Thomson Learning, 2001.
Bureaucracy is a typical way that people use to organize actions or activities. The innovation of Western bureaucracy many years ago gave leaders a solution for managing human systems that have grown over the years. It can also be defined as an institutional way for applying procedures, thereby making actions of authorities anticipated and fair.
The essential function of bureaucracy is to put into practice procedures of an organization successfully regardless of its size to achieve the purpose and mission of the organization. Bureaucracy is a powerful tool in an organization and is sometimes referred to as a ‘branch of government’ because of its ability to function as if it has authority and power. Despite how bureaucracy brings order in an organization, there are several problems associated with it and are discussed below.
One of the problems I encountered with bureaucracy is when I did my attachment in a manufacturing company. Leaders and management of the organization were regarded as the most critical arm of the organization and the higher your rank, the more important you are considered to be.
In my opinion, the most important person in the organization is the one who strife’s to bring quality and satisfy the needs of customers. When members of a team are ranked in terms of significance, other members are hurt. I suggest that every job and responsibility in an organization be regarded as essential and the notion of importance and status be disregarded to avoid alienation.
Another problem I encountered with bureaucracy in this institution is the rigidity of making decisions. A lot of emphases was placed on consistency when creating products. Unless a good reason had been deliberated upon by management to change the product, it had to be consistent with the past outcomes. Overreliance on the value that bureaucracies place on consistency without considering the impacts can result in the production of mediocre products and dissatisfied customers.
For an organization targeting to satisfy customers, rigidity is only essential if it is providing desired qualities that make a customer satisfied. This is only possible with flexibility. Stiffness in bureaucracy is elaborated by the fact that Equal treatment is fair for all, but in most cases results in unequal treatment for all. Since customers are interested in getting satisfied, it is reasonable that each customer is satisfied than treat them equally which might lead to uneven satisfaction.
Inefficiency is another problem with bureaucracies. Efficiency is achieved when we use valuable resources to get valuable outputs. When the fraction is small, production is said to be more efficient. If for instance, we value a swimming pool, then the procedure for constructing a swimming pool using the least resources and in the shortest time is said to be more efficient.
According to Albrow (1970), “Instant changes in a bureaucracy are almost impossible because several steps must be followed in decision making.” Opposing parties can demand that the bureaucrat support their idea or suggestions.
This slows down decision making thereby, leading to inefficiency. In a government setting, inefficiency is much experienced. The following instances can be compared: when people complain that swimming pools are not being built on time, yet not all people prioritize swimming, but when there are complaints of non-competitive bidding that allowed bureaucrats to manipulate the process, then people are said to care for an efficient government.
Reference
Albrow, M. (1970). Bureaucracy. London: Pall Mall Press
The discourses of Max Weberian’s bureaucracy are central to schools of thought related to merit systems, hierarchical structures of governance, job specialization, and uniform principles. Essentially, bureaucracy is interactively “a large democratic system of government that has trouble making changes in a timely manner” (Mandel, 1992, p.27).
The ideal form of bureaucracy discussed by Weber is predominantly hierarchical with specific lines that demarcate the extent of authority in a governance system.
In such a system, people normally execute actions from the guideline of some established rules written down. Woodrow (1987) gives an insight that, in pure bureaucratic regime, “bureaucratic officials need expert training, rules are implemented by neutral officials, and career advancement depends on technical qualifications judged by the organization, not individuals” (p.198).
In this light, although Weber viewed conducting administrative tasks in a bureaucratic manner as entailing the most efficient way of organization of systems of governance, he raises concerns that it posed an immense threat to the freedom of individuals.
From my work experience with a bureaucratic system as a teacher, bureaucracy entails a number of aspects. These aspects are hierarchy, formal rules, impersonality, qualification, focus, and function. In the teaching profession, a state has the mandate of monitoring educational power levels in running of schools.
The top most people in charge of overseeing the accomplishment of educational tasks are guided by established rules in the American constitution. They are under the control of the US department of education. Below the head of a state’s education officer, there are a number of power levels. These levels are necessary since, in bureaucratic governance, “members organized by functions and skills keep similar individuals together” (Neil, 1993, p.98).
Additionally, in every level of educational administration, there exist rules that are applicable with impersonality. This, according to Neil (1993), facilitates “equal treatment and uniform policies and procedures” (p.107). A more important experience in my teaching profession is that, during recruitment, I was considered for the job based on qualifications, as opposed to connections and or relationships.
Throughout my working time as a teacher, I was bound to comply with the authority administered by the school head inasmuch as it was consistent with federal educational rules and regulations. Essentially, my tasks as a bureaucrat were to do what the rules and regulations administered by the head teacher required of me. However, this does not mean that every organization is bureaucratic since examples of organizations that are not bureaucratic exist. These include sole proprietorship organization and human rights organizations.
In the contemporary organizations, bureaucracy may also be used positively. A bureaucratic organization emphasizes on organizations’ objectives. This focus is normally geared towards enhancing the profitability of the organization. This is essential for the organization to continue being a net employer and for the net benefit of the owners.
Hall (1963) also holds this line of view by further asserting, “goals of an in focus bureaucracy relate to market share and high profits” (p.37). On a different angle of view, standard operating procedures dominate bureaucratic organizations. They are formalized in the form of manuals and procedures. Consequently, upon following the rules and procedures precisely, bureaucrats save time since no critical decisions are required before starting the next procedure in the line of their duty.
Conclusively, the concept of bureaucracy has its origin from the works of Max Weber, a German political economist, administration, and a sociologist scholar. By deploying Weber’s approach to bureaucracy, the short paper discusses bureaucracy as a concept in organizations’ administration and governance systems besides considering my experience as a teacher.
Amid the pitfall of bureaucracy such as posing hindrances to people from becoming multi-skills due to the immense levels of job specialization advocated for by bureaucracy, the paper maintains that bureaucracy may serve as an incredible way of enhancing staff accountability.
Reference List
Hall, R. (1963). The concept of bureaucracy: an empirical assessment. The American Journal of Sociology, 69(1), 32-40.
Mandel, E. (1992). Power and Money: A Marxist Theory of Bureaucracy. London: Verso.
Neil, G. (1993). Bureaucracy: Three Paradigms. Boston, MA: Kluwer.
Woodrow, W. (1987). The Study of Administration. Political science quarterly, 2(2), 197–222.
A Non-profit organization describes a type of business that does not allow the sharing of profits among its owners. The term ‘profit’ in this description is used to explain but not actually to mean the perception of surplus of revenues against the organizations spending. Non-profits organization are organized into corporations under the corporations laws which may vary in each state since every state has its own provisions of creating a non-profit organization that allow different forms of organizations including a trust or unincorporated association among others.
There is also involvement of Internal Revenue Service (IRS) since it’s under this section that the organization of nonprofits is defined including taxation. Any corporation is required to pay corporate income tax to the federal government on their net income and it is here is that charities tax exemption is highlighted. There is the need for NGOs to engage themselves in fundraising activities in an attempt to fulfill their financial obligations. Various ways are available through which NGOs can be bale to seek for funds to finance their operations.
First, it is the government grants that provide them with the largest support. However, in some instances, non-government agencies, corporations and foundations can also give their financial assistance through donations. Agencies that receive grants from the government to run their humanitarian programs base their repayment on charges for those services. There are bureaucracies that are involved when trying to acquire government grants. For instance, the receiving organizations are required to prepare a report of the programs they operate and how they spent their funds when the grant period ends.
Introduction and Statement of the Problem
Nonprofits are usually run under different rules and regulations from those that govern private organization established for making profits. They enjoy some special privileges and this gives them significant advantages over profit seeking corporation in the market. These non-profit organizations do not pay taxes to the federal, state and local tax schemes or to any other regulating body. These organizations also enjoy priority preference during awarding of government grants and contracts.
These tax exemptions and other privileges help these organizations to cut their operation costs and they ultimately gain an edge over the private organizations (Alexander et al, 1999, p. 453). The profit organizations are in this context punished further to the degree that they bear this cost of subsidizing in the form of higher taxes. In many instances, the profit making organizations are pushed away from the market or they suffer big losses while new organization gets discouraged from venturing into the market in which these non-profits also work.
The idea of exempting these organizations from taxes was reached by the Congress and it is based on the welfare theory (Alexander et al, 1999, p. 453). This theory states that the nonprofits offer services that would otherwise have been offered by the government were it that these nonprofits were not in existence. This therefore means that any revenue lost by tax exemption is eventually offset by shifting the finance load of offering these services from the federal treasury.
The non-profits are developing very fast because of the increasing demand of their services as they are basically essential for daily lives of citizens. For instance, the nonprofits offer services like day-care, medical services, relief aid, food and educational support (Brown, 2006, p. 4). The government has also extended the support it gives to the nonprofits because beyond the tax exemptions because these organizations are said to offer collective services and the benefits that they yield benefits a wider range of people or clients.
Problem Statement
Government grants are used by the government to do social work through non-profit organization without taking the responsibility of being answerable to the citizens. Besides, the government gains control over the nonprofits through this support (Brown, 2006, p. 4). This can be seen in the way that these grants are allocated with special preference being awarded to the nonprofits. The government escapes responsibilities for investing in projects where no public consensus has been reached like religious and educational support (Berry & Arons, 2003, p. 56). Tax exempted organizations operate like other profit making organizations since they own accounts, they own assets, they earn income from goods or services they offer including incomes as grants.
Legal regulation
Nonprofits can be categorized into more than 20 different types under the Internal Revenue system depending on their objective (e.g. charities, educational purposes, religious, children welfare or literary), but 501(c) (3) provides the most common way of classification. It is also under this code that all nonprofits are excepted form paying tax (Brown, 2006, p. 4). There are no legal restrictions on the manner in which the nonprofits generate their surpluses or how to allocate them. An individual cannot own a non-profit business. He/she can only be the founder or director but never collect profits or sell the business for personal benefits (Berry & Arons, 2003, p. 56). The founders of any non-profit organization are protected from personal liability for the activities of the organization since the organization is considered a separate entity from the founders and those who run it.
The IRS (Internal Revenue Service) is charged with the responsibility of regulating the NGOs seeing that it is a legal requirement for all corporations to pay tax. However there are some corporations that are exempt from these revenues and these categories are mentioned in section 501 of the IR code. Among them are charities, religious, or scientific and those organized for educational benefits (Alexander et al, 1999, p. 453). The rationale to regulate the nonprofits businesses through 501(c) (3) is quite clear-cut; these organizations are public charities. Nonprofits operated under this code are those which are solely charitable, for public safety, for religious, science or for education.
Definition of terms
Grant
This is a financial assistance that is donated to support an organization to run its programs. Grants are typically given to nonprofits for a certain program or objective ranging from corporations to government agencies.
Non-profit
This is a type of business organization formed under regulations that does not allow the founders to share profits. Profits here are relatively tricky accounting terminology related to and not equal to surplus of income over expenses. Many nonprofits are registered as corporation and this way they are managed under the federal and state laws according to the state in which they operate.
Charitable organization
This is a form of a nonprofit that is generally a public charity or a foundation. It is quite different from other nonprofits in that it concentrates on a general philanthropist that serves the interests of the public.
Clients
All the services and activities that nonprofits offer or are engaged in are directed towards serving clients. Clients therefore refer to the ‘consumers’ of the commodities offered by nonprofits whether touchable or intangible.
Literature Review
Introduction
The government offers grants to humanitarian agencies for financial assistance so that they can through this carry out public services or to stimulate social service. These federal grants are not given to individuals for their own benefits but rather target to benefit the whole community. This means that they are given utterly for charities. Those nonprofit organizations that qualify as charities are based on the reason other than advocacy in politics and this means that their purposes are to shelter the homeless, feed the hungry, build recreation for children and provide health facilities which are exclusively to offer basic services (Berry & Arons, 2003, p. 59). Their mission is strictly prohibited from conducting political activities.
Tax deductibility is a type of spending and this simply means a subsidy in simple terms. If then the government by subsidizing means not taxing nonprofits, then it will have to collect more revenue from other sources. If the governments don’t subsidize charities, then federal tax for profit making corporation would be lower than it is (Alexander et al, 1999, p. 454). On the other hand, if there were no charitable organizations, then the government would have to spend more money on running the humanitarian programs across the country or even create several other subsidies.
Indeed, the major argument that defends nonprofits is that they offer services that the government wants to see being offered to its citizens. Still, there is a certainly a strong, justified basis that the government uses to regulates the manner in which that taxpayers’ money is used (Alexander et al, 1999, p. 455). Sometimes the organizations can be used for political objectives and the objective would be undermined as explained in 501(c) (3). In order to protect vitally significant manner in which government finances its welfare, civic programs and charities, then the best choice would be to control the nonprofits that have already qualified under 501(c)(3).
Overreliance on Government
There are some problems that are faced by the nonprofits due to their dependence on the government support. Vendorism, bureaucracy and dependence are the main problems though they have been dismissed by some people as not being as dangerous as implied. However, researches across the United States have shown that these dangers are very real.
Bureaucracy: the processes that have to be followed during application for government grants or trying to obtain government contracts are in most cases exceedingly complex. The laws and regulations that deal with the way the nonprofits uses the money it gets from government financing or contracting are habitually changing (Carpenter, 2001, p. 121). For the nonprofits to be able to obtain government grants, they need to meet certain requirements which include hiring professionals into the organizations (Alexander et al, 1999, p. 455). In order to meet the set conditions that their proposal must have, to govern new communal programs, and to conform to government’s regulation laws, many nonprofits tend to design organization structures that would enable them to do all this (Ali, 2007, p. 73).
They dedicate each staff to probably every government agency that provides financial support in order to secure some grants or contracts (Carpenter, 2001, p. 121). These efforts have been found to take up too much time of the organization. Consequently, these organizations end up developing very complicated organizational structures, and these basically matches their public financing streams. The processes of writing proposals, drafting reports for accountability, creating financial plans considerably increase organizational costs hence deflecting major resources from their core mission which is to benefit the community (Ali, 2007, p. 73).
Vendorism: sometimes nonprofits get desperate to obtain grants and contracts from the government. When the government is the major source of income, the nonprofits are forced to compete for few government finances so that they can acquire the support by every means. There are major changes that include altering their mission and characteristics. Some nonprofits have grown into passive, homogenized social service groups purported by the public (Carpenter, 2001, p. 121). This is a position that these organizations have reached following several years of depending on grants from the government.
Dependence: as nonprofits continue depending on the government for support, the government also tends to rely on these organizations to provide the public with certain services as such they sometimes consider this association as a ‘partnership’ which benefits the two entities. Some other parties view this kind of association as patron-client relationship. For this relationship to last for long power must balance between the two entities and evidently this cannot be, even by any means (Ali, 2007, p. 73). When financing is entirely from the government, then it has the upper hand in calling the shots.
It decides how the finances are going to be allocated, which organization gets the money and what services are contracted and the like. When the nonprofits are required to provide state-financed services based on the terms that are in most cases or at times wholly by the government, there can barely be real partnership in this case (Carpenter, 2001, p. 124).
They can simply be referred to as government agents, and as the patron, the government can lure these nonprofits to focus on providing services that they would otherwise have not ventured into. To a certain degree, the financial support of the government distorts or influences their mission and this way, the autonomy that the nonprofits should be enjoying is infringed (Ali, 2007, p. 73). The organizations are unable to protect their independence from their financiers.
There is a lot of money that the government is willing to offer to the nonprofits for their services and this money is given out in form of grants only accessible following application to the federal government. The government reviews each proposal on individual basis and they consider numerous reasons for the grants including business ideas and value for money (Carpenter, 2001, p. 125).
The best legitimate reason for making the application and a viable plan for implementing it may be able to acquire an approval for the grants. Since the mission of the non-profits is to safeguard human rights and bring about such a big difference in lives of the community members, it’s no surprise that these people are most deserving of the money. However, the organizations do not meet their objectives independently because the organization is influenced by management (Carpenter, 2001, p. 125).
Organizational Structure
The way an organization is organized usually has a big role in shaping the way that organization will behave. Whether it is in the way the organization selects the activities it will conduct or the manner in which the work will be conducted and managed (Tucker & David, 2006, p. 183). There are basically two aspects of organization that impact most in this case, and can seriously affect the way charities function; they are Professionalism and bureaucratization. The government as identified earlier can at time requires that the charities being financed employ experts to run their activities.
When this happens, the professionals would be apt to strategically formalize the nonprofits in a way that they are protected from threats and challenges (Ali, 2007, p. 73). Such organization could destabilize major production of the organization. The professionals will also tend to use institutional strategies and show competence for forming a coalition. For advocacy of humanitarian issues, the latter could be favorable however in other times it will be problematic (Tucker & David, 2006, p. 183).
The paid staff could displace the main objectives that the organizations were founded on. This is because there are issues like career advancement and system management strategy and this could harm the dedication that is given to other important activities (Ali, 2007, p. 73). This deference could as well build a myopic perception of the organizational responsibilities on core production at the expense of the most necessary services to the public.
Another impact comes from the way in which the advocacy is managed through the hierarchical ranks, processes or rules. It important to note that with professionalism, the concept of bureaucracy can work in both directions. First, bureaucratization can promote better services by the nonprofits since their services get established state practices included into the managerial practice (Tucker & David, 2006, p. 185).
However, some studies have revealed that bureaucratization of these services puts restrictions on the people that are traditionally marginalized in terms of civic rights etc. this is because it directs the clients to conform to the traditional norms of interest participation, instead of encouraging activities that are regarded as being very critical for general representation (Tucker & David, 2006, p. 184). Both structural aspects indicate that competition in their ability to offer better representation or civic service. And while it’s sensible for a bureaucratic personality to come up in an area where there are many paid professional, there is also theoretical rationale purporting that they have self-sufficient results as well; something that can be tested empirically (Alexander et al, 1999, p. 455).
Government Requirements for Nonprofits
There are set rules that determine the admissibility of a nonprofit properly explained in IRS section 501 specifically (c) (3). Because of their charitable services, they are exempt from taxation. The nonprofits that are formed in line with specifications of 501(c)(4) also deal with social welfare and can advocate to the government, a function that is wholly restricted to the firms formed under 502(c)(3). Donations given to them are hence tax-deductible (Ali, 2007, p. 73). However, there are two reasons that the government wants the nonprofits to run. First, the nonprofits protect certain fundamental freedoms and liberties like freedom of expression and second, nonprofits provide market to consume the product and services like health and food that are supplied by the government.
Whereas design of nonprofits is usually devoted to protecting liberties and maybe less concerned about economic efficacy, services offered by the government on the other hand are traditionally measured against economic efficiency. The major role of non profits is to offer goods and services for use by the public and as such, the government has reasons for fostering these nonprofits (Ali, 2007, p. 73).
The major one is that the government wants the nonprofits to provide basic commodities to the community. The government’s democratic choice of the will not satisfy high demand populations and then this has to be addressed by the nonprofits. The non-distribution restrictions encourages the government to grant nonprofits some help because when there is no transparency on how donations were used in profit-making companies, they can pass these to their shareholders instead of using them for service provision (Alexander et al, 1999, p. 457).
Another reason is that the nonprofits can distribute services to the community through ways that are unavailable to government agencies, for instance religious environment. This latitude also encourages grants from philanthropic individuals (Ali, 2007, p. 74). The donors’ ideologies are usually matched with the services of the nonprofits. With this perception, the government builds on the definition of the nonprofits whereby they are considered to be without owners.
Nonprofits from a Global Perception
Exercising charity is a way of expressing humanitarian sympathy including feeling for other people and capacity to place themselves in other persons’ shoes. Therefore non-profit across the world are seen as humanitarian advocates and means of maintaining social system. Nonprofits help to relieve social tension in communities in order to basically preserve a differentiation in economic groups and hence also preserve status quo (Tucker & David, 2006, p. 187). They enhance societal stability by being used as a tool for social control by the government.
The mission of many nonprofits does not in many cases match exactly with the governments donors. Even though the basic motive of the donors is relief-based and most receptive to address the short term problems like food, hunger, health and homelessness. The objectives of private voluntary organization on the other hand aim at meeting developmental objective like education, public health program, creating income generating projects and training. The challenge comes when these nonprofits are struggling to maintain and extend their activities while the social crises often faced are short-term.
Government Dominance
Some nonprofits are now defining their development objective based on political environment and goals instead of economic terms. Many American nonprofits do their aid services abroad, where they have expanded their goals to issues that are not a priority to the government donors (Wang, 2000, p. 9). These nonprofits support groups in developing countries and also campaign for programs that are different from and at times contrasting the strategies that the government approves back in home country (Wang, 2000, p. 9). For instance some nonprofit work against oppressive governments and seek to try and restore stability in warring or unstable nations the way some organization did in Cuba. The social supports that were offered to the low income sectors was a relief for the government to care for the groups they considered not part of their support base.
There are some factors that are crucial when it comes to nonprofits advocacy and the major one is collaborative networking. When nonprofits engage in numerous inter-organization functions they form a lot of associations and alliances. There is definitely a difference in the degree of networking by various organizations to reach key resources in an attempt to meet their mission (Wang, 2000, p. 9). Charities are involved in collaborative networking to economize transaction expenses that are linked to service delivery.
The pattern of having the largest source of financial assistance to nonprofits from government grants and subsidies are very common across the world. In Europe, in countries like France and Germany, the government grants account for about 62-68% of the nonprofits income. In west Europe, the government offers even greater support as seen in Sweden, Holland and Belgium. Specifically, Netherlands gives about 90% support while in Sweden it’s more than two-thirds. Such support has led to people believing that the relationship that builds between these organizations and the government is an inherent conflict where one partner gains while the other looses.
Basically, if this was correct, then the governments of the many nations supporting nonprofits would have already cut their support or the nonprofits would have pulled out. But, the benefit of this is undeniable fact (Wang, 2000, p. 10). The government depends on the nonprofits for delivery of crucial services to general welfare of the citizens. This relationship can see the parties involved use each other’s strength to complement the other one’s weakness. Private organizations are more efficient than government in production of services while the government solves the problems of free rider. At the end of the day, government’s support facilitates expansion of humanitarian support.
Analysis
Definition and Management
Just from the definition of the nonprofits, these organizations are set up for the benefit of the community rather than to make money. Since they are exempt from taxes, they have to be registered with Internal Revenue Service section which deals with federal tax issues regarding charitable organizations (Grobman, 2004, p. 67). The eligibility is basically based on the fact that the nonprofits will offer charitable services.
Because of bureaucracy, some competing objectives come up and advocacy becomes a challenge (Handler, 1996, p. 98). Bureaucracy could suppress advocacy because of the government usually requires that professionals be included in the management of the charities. The nonprofits then tend to pursue a mission that is manipulated by the professionals at the expense of the significant services (Grobman, 2004, p. 67). For instance political advocacy is increasing in many organizations.
Basically, management skills that are in tune with civic representation also play a role in political agenda. For instance, creating civic cooperation in most cases entails assisting the community to articulate their personal and groups interests whereas promoting the strategies of connecting these interests with public needs, like proper administration and responsible politicians (Grobman, 2004, p. 69). The skills are cross-functional as they can be used for advocacy on education of the clients concerning their rights, explaining the proposed projects and communicating with appropriate government agencies concerning the position of the clients.
Sometimes the managerial skills of the professional are used for lobbying. Through this, the organizations claim that they are able to create awareness of public problems to the community and at the same time they are able to find resources of political and financial support that are critical for sustained operation (Grobman, 2004, p. 70). However, federal IRS that regulates operation of the charities forbids these organizations from squandering fortunes from their budget on lobbying. Nonetheless, as resource interdependence with the government and other agencies grows, nonprofits are seeking for ways to be more effective with the restricted lobbying activities (Handler, 1996, p. 98).
Taken together, it’s expected that the existence of the intermediary elements of management puts nonprofits in a better position for advocacy. Nonprofits are run by board of directors where the executive is also a member of the board. The theories of resources dependence hints that the managers are always seeking to control their external dependencies via strategic efforts to be in charge over the environment in which they are entrenched (Handler, 1996, p. 98).
Nonprofit theories advance two major types of resource dependence that could influence the predisposition of public charities to sponsor: overreliance on government contracts, revenues and grants and also reliance on private agencies’ support. These public charities dependence on the government is well documented and it’s from these two different lines of thought that show advocacy is influence by this. The two logics forecast increased tendency to advocate when the organization relies too much on the government.
The first reasoning is that the organizational leaders make a rational choice to work on. From this perspective, the organizational leaders strategically align their activities on the objectives in which the organization were formed in their endeavor to attain utility-maximization and self-protection. Critics have argued that charities merely use the grants to lobby for more financing. Indeed, there is some proof that nonprofits lobby the government and rally clients so as to safeguard their public financing base, expand it and otherwise attain results in the organizations interest (Handler, 1996, p. 98).
A second logic, though relatively different, it indicates that nonprofits often advocate at a higher level in cases where they are the recipients of the finances. Salamon’s partnership theory of the relationship that exist between the government and the nonprofits indicate that government support entrenches public service principles and customs like involvement by enforcing rules, constraints and responsibilities on the part of nonprofits that accept these finances. The nonprofits speak on behalf of the clients to the government when they are seeking the finances because they have greater probability of being in contact with the government.
So long as an agency is supporting a nonprofit corporation, it is in control of the charity and decides on the service that will be ventured into. This is a very undemocratic situation but in can result in a self-defeating position of reliance on the side of the poor as they offer them no choice of the resources.
Regulating the Organization
Nonprofits are regulated under federal and state governments but fundamentally under mandates by the US IRS. This is where the guidelines are clearly stated to explain particular disclosures and requirements that are necessary for the running of these nonprofits especially their functions and financing. At the state level, the office of Business of individual states does the registration. These states also require that these organizations register yearly for the licenses to solicit funds.. Furthermore the organization should carry a clause on conflict of interest in their constitution.
Dealing with the Challenge
The nonprofits and government agencies alike are faced with unmatched challenges in management ranging from the complicated structures embedded in the organizational policies. The end results of these challenges have been slowed decision-making, gratuitously high expenses, and, quite frequently, a general sense of organizational inactivity and opposition to change. The challenges here define the broader meaning of bureaucracy (Grobman, 2004, p. 78). Problems develop with time and in most cases, these challenges crop in so slowly that they mostly go unnoticed, but they accumulate into crucial barriers that hold back best performance.
With all the requirements that bureaucratization has brought about high need of professional who will be able to prepare the documents needed at the inception of these nonprofits like preparing proposals, creating the constitution and running these organizations effectively (Handler, 1996, p. 98). Paying heed to these changing demands, there are new programs being established like in the case of the Wayne State University. They university has developed a nonprofit sector program to solve this issue.
The mission of the programs is that this fastest growing sector has to have competent advocates and program managers among other professionals to guide the sector into a more industrious future (Cq Researcher 2007, p. 144). Many expect that the increasing payment packages at non-profits will draw superior talent; rather it has to a larger extent meant that these organizations are just paying more money for same amount of work. Still it also means that these organizations are just being led by over ambitious dimwits that want to push for ever expanding projects at the expense of other smaller objectives that work. The best way to settle on the projects to invest in will be those that the community deems very important for them and not the non-profits thinks are cheaper to work on or the projects that the government has directed (Cq Researcher 2007, p. 144).
The challenges facing nonprofits have been aggravated by the current economic downturn. There is also insecurity around potentially unexpected reduction of group budgets, and wider structural discontinuities being observed around the world at large. Instead of coming up with new innovations, many nonprofits are finding themselves being more bogged down at the time when they are required to be having the highest attainable degrees of performance and vivacity (Cq Researcher 2007, p. 144). This is regardless of the fact that leaders in the public sector seem to be more dedicated, unrelenting and compassionate in that they struggle to be good stewards of the properties that they manage.
What will nonprofits do to react to the bureaucracy issue and cause real change throughout the organization? It’s a misconception that nonprofits should be run like business yet there are fundamental differences that exist in their working environment. They have different way of budgeting, unique process of decision making and unique regulation guideline (Cq Researcher 2007, p. 146). Being able to acknowledge these differences is critical as they in the first place do not preclude the managers from establishing high-performance. Leaders can adapt the best commercial practices whenever relevant and they will be able to deal with the root causes of the challenges and hence more quickly find adequate solutions and eventually to elevate their performance.
Summary and Conclusion
Does bureaucracy really affect functionality of the nonprofits? Bureaucracy greatly affects nonprofits functionality, specifically the greater dependence on their funding and also the emerging trend that these organizations be managed by professionals and not mere volunteers. They are also required to adhere to some rules for accountability and this has been observed to suppress advocacy activities. From studies on these nonprofits, the conclusions drawn from them does not show significance statistic for claiming that bureaucracy has affected their functionality.
Bureaucracies of establishing a nonprofits are time consuming as the founders are required to have pre-planning of their wealth and have a board of directors established before applying for registration (Handler, 1996, p. 98). The federal government on the other hand requires that these organizations be run by a group of managers who represent a cross-section of the society.
Nonprofits maybe exempt from tax from their income and therefore they have to fill form 990 of the IRS. This form is used to report fund-raising activities and government grants among other activities of earning revenue. For consideration, the nonprofits must have a business plan so the application process is easier and valid investment. The organization is also required to have an experienced NGO director as a mentor to guide the organization to meet its objectives.
Why governments exempt nonprofits from tax? This has been a question of contention because some people accuse this special privilege for affecting the type of services that the nonprofits offer. From the old saying “the person paying the piper calls the song” or the African adage that “you have to move when another man moves as long as your hand his pocket”, many people do not believe that these nonprofits will maintain their autonomy as long as the government is the main sponsor (Wang, 2000, p. 3). On the same token, when nonprofit rely on their services charges; then the difference between profits and non-profits would be blurred. In any case, the nonprofits face a tough job in trying to retain a reasonable degree of independence except if they can attain a strong foundation of support of labor or private donors.
Basically, the best source of support that nonprofits can access is individual donation of finances and volunteering of time as this kind of support in most cases is normally given with very little or no attached strings (Wang, 2000, p. 3). If a nonprofit is able to procure great amount of support a large number of individual donors, then one of the donors, singly will not be a big threat to independence of the organization. Financial support from other charities and corporations are very different (Froelich, 1999, p. 262).
Income from donors is given with strings attached; however, when you compare financial support from commercial activities that a nonprofit can engage in, foreign donors, government subsidies and individual philanthropists, the individual donors appear to be less threatening to the independence of these nonprofits (Froelich, 1999, p. 262). Unfortunately, the support from private individual donors is very hard to find in any country today as a major source of funding.
From this paper, it’s obvious that non-profits in many countries depend on government support, the sale of their services and from foreign donations. Thus, these nonprofits face dilemmas. On the hand, private support can be good when an organization is maintaining independence, but depending on it alone cannot sustain that organization and chances are that it would not survive into the future. On the other hand, it’s very easier to acquire money from commercial activities and the government but these supports in most cases makes the nonprofits to alter their missions and character (Froelich, 1999, p. 262).
Due to the bureaucracies for government grants, then we can conclude that in no country are nonprofits fully independent. As long as they cannot raise enough money for their projects, it’s unlikely that they will be able to set their mission free of influence from outside. To ensure independence, it’s appropriate that the non-profits build their support foundation on private donors. Nonetheless it’s unrealistic that these will constitute the main revenue source, hence the only feasible solution is to reduce overreliance on single source, especially the government (Froelich, 1999, p. 266).
Reference List
Alexander, J., Nank, R., & Stivers, C. (1999). Implications Of Welfare Reform: Do Nonprofit Survival Strategies Threaten Civil Society? Nonprofit And Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28(4): 452-475.
Ali, A. (2007). Bureaucracy and Charities: The Economic of Private Voluntary Aid, Journal of Businesses & Research, 5(2): 73-76.
Berry, J. M. & Arons, D. F. (2003). A Voice for Nonprofits. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Brown, E. (2006). Donors, Ideologues, and Bureaucrats: The Principal-Agent Relationship between Government and the Nonprofit Sector, Biannual Conference Of The International Society For Third Sector Research, Bangkok, Thailand pp. 3-25.
Carpenter, D.P. (2001). The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Cq Researcher. (2007). Issues For Debate In Corporate Social Responsibility: Selections From CQ, SAGE Publishers, Pp. 144.
Froelich, K. (1999). Diversification Of Revenue Strategies: Evolving Resource Dependence In Non-Profit Organizations, Nonprofits And Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28(3): 246-268.
Grobman, G.M. (2004). An Introduction To The Non-Profit Sector: A Practical Approach For The Twenty-First Century, 2nd Ed. White Hat Communications, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
Handler, J. (1996). Down From Bureaucracy: The Ambiguity Of Privatization And Empowerment. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Tucker, D.J., & David, H.S. (2006). “The Larger They Get: The Changing Size Distributions Of Private Human Service Organizations.” Nonprofit And Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(2):183-203.
Wang, S. (2000). Money and Autonomy – Dilemma Faced by the Nonprofits Sector, Civil Society,” unpublished paper, Yale university pp. 9.
Both public and private organizations recognize the need to organize their activities in order to improve efficiency and productivity. There are different ways of organizing a large number of people to work collectively towards the achievement of a common goal.
In the primary reading, Max Weber provides a model of organizing activities, employees and the administration to achieve efficiency. He names it bureaucracy. It refers to a model of administration that emphasizes on the use of departments and bureaus to achieve the goals of an organization.
The model of bureaucracy dates back to the early 19th century although it existed in a rather fragmented way in the pre-modern world. Nonetheless, Weber elaborates the concept and defines functions, roles and characteristics of bureaucracy and bureaucrats.
Bureaucrats represent the employees and managers of an organization who hold specific qualifications and specialize in their duties and roles. This essay seeks to analyze the characteristics of bureaucracy and bureaucrats as highlighted in the primary reading.
Characteristics and the Nature of an Official Position
First, Weber (2009, p.197) articulates that a bureaucratic structure is typical of hierarchical structures.
In other words, a bureaucratic political system has few officials as the structure goes up. Junior employees and subordinates occupy the bottom of the hierarchy while the managers and senior management team occupy the top of the structure.
Second, Weber (2009, p. 197) says that all bureaucrats ought to possess specific skills and expertise to fulfill the goals of an organization. This implies that office holders (employees or managers) have specialized in their duties and roles.
Third, a bureaucracy is typical of papers and shelves as the name suggests. In other words, employees work with written documents that are placed in shelves and desks. Bureaucracy reflects numerous offices of the modern organizations that similar to bureaus.
Fourth, Weber (2009, p. 197) points out that the major function of an office is to increase efficiency and productivity of the organization.
To that end, an office is fully developed when the employees and the managers are able to streamline their activities towards improving the efficiency of the organization (Weber 2009, p. 197).
Finally, Weber (2009, p. 198) postulates that the most important objective of a bureaucrat is to ensure that employees and members of staff ought to follow the set rules and regulations of the office (bureau).
The employees can learn the rules and regulations through training and guidance on their specific roles within the structure.
Weber (2009, p.198) characterizes the nature of the position of a leader in a bureaucracy. First, the office holders should possess a vocation or a calling for the leadership roles and have an intrinsic motivation to perform at different capacities within the system.
Second, leaders must recognize that leading other people is a duty rather than a role. They should not focus on compensation packages as is with other laborers in the market.
Further, Weber (2009, p. 199) articulates that a bureaucratic leader serves the interests of the office with undivided loyalty. This implies that the modern bureaucratic leaders are loyal servants of the impersonal office (bureau).
Hence, they serve the office with all respect and loyalty by ensuring that they are consistently able to achieve the objectives of the organization (Craib1997, p. 11).
Moreover, the position of an official or a leader of a bureaucratic structure has more social esteem than the positions occupied by the followers (Weber 2009, p. 199). The rationale is that the official enjoys various privileges that the governed do not enjoy.
Other characteristics of the position of the official include appointment by superior authority as opposed to an election, permanence of the office, career growth and development, and the hierarchical ranking of the bureaucrats.
To emphasize on the permanence of the position, Weber (2009, p. 202) postulates that it has tenure of life. This implies that the position does not ‘die’ when a leader resigns or stop fulfilling the duties associated with the office.
An Illustration of the Concept in Everyday Life
An example of bureaucratic structure modern society is a public organization. At the outset, public organizations have hierarchical structure where junior employees hold the lowest position within the structure.
As you go up the hierarchical structure, the number of employees reduces since there are few official leaders in the hierarchy. It is important to highlight that a superior authority appoints the directors and managers of public organizations.
This is in line with Weber’s characteristics of modern bureaucratic organizations where an official ought to be appointed by a superior authority. In pubic organizations, board of directors appointed by various public authorities has the mandate of employing or appointing a new bureaucrat.
In addition, public organizations have permanent positions that are reserved for the leaders. In other words, the position of the director of public organizations has existed in many societies for many years.
This implies that the office has ‘tenure of life’ in the sense that it remains even when the director resigns or quits. Employees of public organizations enjoy promotion along hierarchical ladder.
In other words, public organizations ensure that individuals experience career growth and development. This is in accordance with the principles, characteristics and rules that govern bureaucratic structures.
Finally, it is noticeable that pubic organization exists within specified sectors and industries that serve as their areas of jurisdiction.
Conclusion
In summary, bureaucracy is a model of administration where employees and managers work together to achieve efficiency of an organization. It is associated with Max Weber who defined and elaborated on the roles, characteristics and the nature of the model.
In the primary reading, Weber (2009, pp. 196-203) highlights the characteristics of the model and the bureaucrats. He says that a bureaucracy is characterized by hierarchical structure, specialization, division of labor, expertise, specific rules and regulations and ‘paper work’.
Besides, Weber (2009, p. 202) highlights the nature of an office in a bureaucratic model. The office occupants ought to possess a vocation of leading and recognize that leading is a duty rather than a role. They should possess undivided loyalty to the office.
Subsequently, the office is impersonal, permanent and it allows employees to experience career growth. An illustration of the model in the modern society is the nature of administration in public organizations.
References
Craib, I 1997, Classical Social Theory, Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Weber, M 2009, Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, Routledge, Oxon.
Bureaucracy is an organization that is composed of non-elected officials in a government who play an important role in the implementing of proposed policies. Bureaucracy is one of the major ways that has helped many governments to implement their policies effectively.
In bureaucracy, an organisation is structured hierarchically where particular functions are conducted in a certain way. In the government bureaucracy, there is no single set of leaders who dominates the management unlike in the case of private bureaucracies.
In any government, the major role of bureaucracies is to serve the citizenry. They play a pivotal role in mitigating the government inefficiencies that tend to undermine the progress in the country.
Generally, bureaucracy plays a significant role in the formulation and implementation of policies and participating in other issues on governance. In every system adopted by the government, bureaucracy is important in running the state affairs since it is characterized by a higher level of efficiency and effectiveness.
Federal bureaucracy in the United States plays a significant role in the government. It ensures that the citizens achieves maximum benefits from the taxes they pay (Schmidt, Shelley, Bardes, and Ford 483). In this case, the federal bureaucracy plays a significant role in the implementation of the budget and other financial functions.
Therefore, the federal bureaucracy is very powerful in the US. However, it has been politicized; the fact that tends to undermine its effectiveness. The federal bureaucracy is also connected to other state bodies by providing the financial assistance.
For instance, both the department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Education distributed the funds to other branches at the state levels (Schmidt, Shelley, Bardes, and Ford 485).
Foreign Policy: Export Policy
The export policy is one of the most critical policies in the US. This is because it has a significant implication to the country’s economic performance and security. The policy provides the guidelines on the export of some sensitive equipment like software and technology in an effort to control the country’s security interests (Export Control par 3).
The effectiveness of the Export Control System policies is significantly determined by the political decisions to adhere to the norms set (Export Control par 5). One of the institutions involved in this process is the Department of State. This plays an important role in implementing the statutes related to exports (Export Control par 6).
The Department of Commerce also has a significant role in the implementation of export policies. In collaboration with other agencies, the Department of Commerce regulates the export or even re-exports of critical products like software and technology from United States.
Many people have been having doubts on the fact that the government can work for the common goal. It is feared that the government will always be disrupted by other factors like politics in making various decisions.
The government can however work for common goal by avoiding politics in making critical decisions that affect citizens and by remaining neutral. When issues like policy making are politicized, they will reflect individual interests rather than common goals.
In case I was given a chance to share my thought, one of the major areas I would have proposed is on the citizen participation. Every citizen must be given an opportunity to give their views in development and implementation of policies. This will ensure that the needs of every citizen are catered for.
Although there is no need for redefining the American government as a whole, there is a need to make some adjustment in order to promote efficiency and effectiveness in government operations.
Works Cited
Export Control. “Overview of the U.S. Export Control System.” Export Control, 2011. Web.
Schmidt, Steffen, Shelley, Mack, Bardes, Barbara, and Ford Lynne. American Government and Politics Today 2011-2012 Edition. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning, 2011. Print
Three decades ago, political theories of political control of bureaucracy underwent complete transformation; shifting from the paradigm that emphasizes the extreme difficulty with which electoral institutions have in controlling the massive powers of the federal bureaucracies to one which insists that the elected officials have powers to control and shape bureaucratic behaviors systematically. Historically, this was demonstrated by the Reagan Administration, which changed a number of programs (Dye, 2003). These developments triggered a number of scholars in the field of social sciences to develop tools to measure and evaluate the extent of this control. What followed was a series of empirical studies that were meant to establish the extent to which the electoral institutions would control the then overbearing bureaucratic institutions. To date, the political theory of bureaucratic control holds the view that political office has a massive power to control bureaucracies. However, what is the extent of control?
Several empirical studies have been done in the past to explore the dynamics of political control, scope or how manipulation can occur, and to some extent, what variables are there for manipulation to occur. Wood & Waterman (1991), cited in Dye (2003), examined the dynamism in this political control of the bureaucracy to explicitly determine the scope and mechanisms of this influence. In this study, the two researchers investigated seven bureaucracies in relation to their responsiveness to political tools applied by Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan administrations (Dye, 2003). Their findings revealed that all the seven public bureaucracies were responsive. Furthermore, the results also indicated that political appointments (a shared power between the president and the congress ) are the most important instrument of political control, while changing budget, legislation, congressional signals, and administrative reorganizations were considered less significant (Dye, 2003).
Meier, O’TooleO’Toole & Hawes, cited in Holland (1999), tested multiple theoretical determinants of political control over bureaucracies and justified the concept that political office has a huge influence on the nature and effectiveness of these bureaucracies. These findings illustrate the importance of the scholars’ insistence that a method of policy control monitoring is necessary for the better democratic future of America. In other words, the future of America’sAmerica’s democracy is hinged on current policies that will shape the extent of political control of the bureaucratic office to avoid misuse.
Representative Bureaucracy
Representative bureaucracy theory is based on the belief that an organization would work effectively and efficiently if the constituents were well represented in the workforce. That is to say, the organization’s elected persons have the discretion to choose members from their constituency to occupy the non-elective positions within the organization, taking into consideration the constituent’s population characteristics. Many believe that this kind of organizational arrangement is based on the strategy of the organization. In this theoretical perspective, it is possible to agree to the fact the public sector governance explicitly needs some kind of validation, ostensibly to gain the support of policies. At times this kind of demand overrides all other factors in the appointments just to secure the support of society. As Dolan (2003) puts it, “no matter how brilliantly conceived, no matter how artfully contrived, government action usually also requires societal support. And one of the oldest methods of securing such support is to draw a wide segment of the society into the government to convey and to merchandise a policy….” (p.25)
Basically, the belief that bureaucracy is in fact representative is put forward in two separate ways: (i) it is seen as such in composition and in a manner of its selection; (ii) it is judged in terms of substantive product, and the quality of its decisions is evaluated in the light of their accord with what is normally considered pubic opinion. Many critics have argued that the two kinds of arguments are principally intertwined and that the results of such arrangements would not justify the validity of the first belief unless some assumptions are made. [Roger] Davidson cited in Dolan (2003) wonders, “analytically, the test of representation is whether, in public policymaking, the demands or interests of every relevant definable public have been effectively articulated” (37)
However, against the backdrop of the criticisms, many empirical studies have attempted to establish and justify this theory. Meier & Polinard (1999) examined the long-standing notion that representative bureaucracy favors the minority at the expense of the non-minority using a pooled time-series analysis of 350 school districts over a period of six years. Against the belief, the researchers reveal that the two, minority and non-minority, all have measurable gains, and the output is better than the non-representative arrangements. In his attempt to establish whether representative democrats truly represent the interest of their subjects or represents their personal interests and/or that of the principal, Konisky (2007) presents an optimistic observation that the representation is positive except for where knowledge about the details of representation varies. He emphasizes that the fundamental reason behind the representative bureaucratic arrangement is that bureaucrats have the informational expertise obtained through their continual privilege of staying in such a position (p.24). However, he warns that it should be practiced with caution, especially where the specific policies are to be validated through a referendum. This is because such a direct democracy has a possibility of denying the bureaucrats their powers to make critically important decisions, which may lead to “democratically legitimate but inferior policy” (p.25). Principally, this may stem from the fact the bureaucrat, due to their long-term exposure to informational knowledge, would understand the policy implication better than their subjects.
Bureaucratic Politics
Bureaucratic politics theory allure to the fact that non-elected government officials get access to the political office through political appointments and subsequently attempt to use their positions to influence the policy changes or manipulate the process of policymaking. In most cases, they are charged with the responsibility of implementing government policies. This position also gives them opportunities to shape and influence the policymaking process or change. One of the earlier supporters of bureaucratic political powers is Max Weber, cited in Dye (2003), who described bureaucracy as a “rational” way in which society organizes itself; they are not just limited to the government but are present throughout society. According to Weber, bureaucracies shared three basic features, i.e.: (1) chain of command symbolized by the hierarchical structure of authority; (2) division of labor characterized by work divided among the specialists in the government in an attempt to increase and improve productivity; and (3) impersonality, where the individuals occupying such positions are selected and treated on the basis of their ”merit”, the ”clients” they serve to get same treatments according to the laid down rules, and maintenance of the records is to ensure the rules are followed to the latter (p.131).
However, many observers and critics state that this kind of political arrangement may lead to disagreements and conflicts between multiple players who would want their positions to carry the day in the process. This theory has for a long time implicated the bureaucrats as those who only strive for policy change or policymaking to push forward their personal interests and those of their employing agencies (Konisky, 2007).
Holland (1999) justified the bureaucratic theory in his study of the U.S decision to launch operation desert storm. He states that such critical decisions can never be made by the elective office but by the appointed office. This is largely because the elective office is likely to be faced with the long process of indecisiveness caused by the dilemma of pleasing the electorate and protecting them at the same time, at a time when an ”enemy” is ready to strike. Again, critical issues that need immediate decision without external consultation will receive low urgency they don’t deserve due to vested interest where bureaucracies lack.
The relationship between interests groups and administration in the context of Low’sLow’s The End of Liberalism
According to Lowi, cited in Connolly (1981), the liberal state established through the new deal of constitutional arrangements in America signified an end to liberation (p.141). This is because the complete democratization of the constitution overwhelmed the actors that its impact could not be controlled. He intimates that its specific way of using the government as the platform for implementation has created a sense of distrust in relation to the public objects.
In this perspective, interest groups’ relationship with the government is seen to benefit the former more and subsequently creates a conflict of interest. Lowi calls it ”interest-group liberation” (p.141). This is because the persons making the interest groups have got the chance to make their sentiments heard, with a strong belief that what is good for the government is good for the public, too; the public, in this case, implies the interest group. This is because they are in a position to merge their claims together to push for a particular policy issue with ease.
However, Lowi believes that these interest groups principally lack pluralistic ideas, as many may claim. In essence, the groups have easily definable ideas that largely seem homogenous. What does Lowi mean? In an actual sense, a particular group will put their faith in the elected representative to the government, whose judgments are taken as absolutely accurate. In some cases, such judgments are never accurate. The other perspective is that these interests groups may present their interests, subsequently leading to conflicts. This is because they will be checking on each other in an attempt to validate their specific claims of representing a society, which in essence is going against the same society, as they all belong to the same society fragmented into numerous interest groups. It is the ideologies of various interest groups that define the ideologies of the Democrats and the Republicans. The whole rank of the public administration ranging from Congressmen to president to bureaucratic administrators, is guided and controlled by the ideologies of interest groups.
Administrative Reforms in the recent American history
The Federal Civil Service Reforms: this reform started when the Pendleton Act of 1883 was passed, followed by the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) of 1978 (Lasswell, 1996). This has steadily transformed the American federal personnel system from the perspective of constitutional, political, and historical limitations (Lasswell, 1996). The proponents of these reforms based their belief in the success of the British civil service model and the practices of the private sector and the theories fronted by the academicians. However, many scholars believe that reforms have not lived up to the expectations of the people, not even the proponents.
The military reforms in the military: The events that followed World War II reinforced the need to reform the military. The main concern was the administration of military justice which was seen to be draconian and punitive (Long, 1962). The media’s exposure to the events of the military justice and punishment led to the reforms. Congress debated several proposals to reform the military (Long, 1962). The rationale was that the military court rulings were outdated and inconsistent, always headed by unprofessional judges. After a decade, the whole system was transformed into a more professional system with professional judges and prosecutors (Long, 1962). The reforms were seen as a way of making the US military stronger and to avoid the then inherent rebellions from the soldiers and the public as well.
The war on terror policy: The Bush Administration spearheaded its war on terror policy after the September 11 bombing. This triggered a new form of relationship with its international partners. The implication of war in Iraq and Afghanistan has invoked questions among scholars of the intentions of America in its war on terror and international relations. While proponents of the war on terror see insist that it was imminent, the anti-war policy insists that the decision to go to war was a big blander as it was not necessary.
However, political theorists can advance theories to advance the arguments that the war in Iraq, for example, was necessary as long as America felt its security was threatened and its position as a superpower was being challenged (Konisky, 2007). Others look at it in the cost-benefit value and claim that just as Paul Peterson’sPeterson’s arguments concerning the federal system of government, the war on terror is futile and carries some of the costs that may not be visible but will only be seen at the end, for those willing to reason out. Peterson, for instance, highlighted the weakness of federalism when he tended to support the anti-federalism stand that a strong Central government would place too much power in the hand of one person hence prone to misuse.
Paul Peterson and the inherent cost of a federal system of government
It must be noted that a new wave of developments has occurred in America in the last four decades. America has shifted from the development initiatives controlled by the central government in Washington to that which is controlled by the states and local governments. According to Paul Peterson and other researchers, this phenomenon has come with its inherent costs in all aspects of political, economic, and social.
Economic costs: according to Lasswell (1996), expenditure on development initiatives in America shorted up significantly, putting a lot of pressure on the domestic tax. He highlights that 1962 scenario where the expenditure at the state and local government levels more than doubled the national one, with the former taking 9.4% and the latter 4.2% of the gross national products (Lasswell, 1996). The same continued through to 1990 when the states spent 10.8% and Washington spent only 4.9% (Lasswell, 1996). Peterson also highlights several occasions when federalism is seen to have cost a lot to the public money. One such significant moment is when the budgetary shortfall doubled from an estimated $7 billion in the January of 1991 to more than $14 billion by May 1992, thus leading to an almost irreversible economic downtown (Lasswell, 1996).
Social Cost: From 1962, Washington’sWashington’s expenditure on the social welfare of the elderly, the poor, and the needy has been on the rise steadily, while that of the state governments has taken the opposite trend. In fact, in 1962, the national government spent 10.3% of Growth National Product from 4.9% the previous year. On the other hand, the state spent only 3.5% from 2.2% the previous year (Lasswell, 1996). This is despite the fact that the state takes the majority of the share of the national budget for its initiatives.
Political cost: according to Peterson (1995), federalism has perpetuated political divisions. He states that the whole bickering and squabbles that arise in the federal system of government are a result of many centers of power which encourage an inevitable conflict. This is because each state tries to expand its powers at the expense of others (Peterson, 1995).
The conflict between pro-federalism and anti-federalism was clear evidence that Americans had tried to pursue functional federalism before the constitutional intervention in the 18th century. Considering the fact that those who drafted the constitution were primarily federalists, they first tried in vain to convince the rest of Americans to accept federalism as the main guiding principle of governance, arguing that the power concentrated in one location will lead to the opposition being suppressed (Peterson, 1995).
It is apparent that the United States has adopted both functional and legislative federalism. First, functional federalism states that by applying the theory, the states are used as the centers for distributing resources. These resources are used to build the infrastructure and other social services to spur the nation’s economic growth. The other is to share the economic benefit by all through redistributing the wealth from the ”haves” to ”have nots”. In this aspect, the federal government will work efficiently only if they respect each other’s role at the government level. Hence in this arrangement, the responsibility of the national government is to redistribute while the state governments execute the development initiatives.
Legislative theory, on the other, fosters the belief that political incentives drive the decisions that are made by the policymakers, legislators. The proponents of this theoretical perspective believe that the president has and the governors have less role and impact on the policy issues affecting states. Legislative theorists believe that the governors and the presidents are always preoccupied with the desire to be re-elected rather than the welfare of their subjects; hence they will concentrate on the need to appease the voters rather than influence any meaningful development agenda. In Petersons view, this kind of dilemma is the climax of disaster as critical issues like the disaster that needs quick action will not receive the needed urgency. This is because the federalists will view it in the political dimension, expecting the national office to act faster than the regional and federal governments, an expectation that may not be practical considering its central nature.
Reference List
Connolly, W. (1981). Appearance and Reality in Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dolan, J. (2003). Representative Bureaucracy: Classic Readings and Continuing Controversies: New York: M.E. Shape.
Dye, T. (2003). Politics in America. Washington DC: Pearson.
Holland, L. (1999). The U.S decision to launch operation desert storm: A bureaucratic politics analysis. Armed Forces & Society, vol 25, No. 2, 219-242.
Konisky, D. (2007). Representative bureaucrats: Attitudinal Congrunce and Agency Expertise. Bureaucrats, politics and the environment. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Lasswell, H. (1996). Politics: Who Gets What, When, How? New York: McGraw Hill.
Long, N. (1962). Bureaucracy and Constitutionalism. American Political Science Review 46, 808-818.
Meier, J. & Polinard L. (1999). Representative bureaucracy and distribution equity: Addressing the hard question. Journal of Politics. Vol.1, (4). 11-17.
Peterson, p. (1995). The Price of Federalism. Stanford: Brookings Institute Press.