The official of necessity becomes specialist, intellectually isolated, oriented towards techniques rather than people. Their vision due to their training and experience in one particular institutionalized activity becomes myopic. Bureaucracy has been condemned as despotic since it craves for power. As such, it usurps the powers of the legislature on the one hand and sidetracks the law courts on the other.
Lord Hewart, a British jurist, in his book New Despotism observed that British citizens shall lose their liberties under the weight of growing administrative absolutism. In the legislative domain the civil services have come to possess the following powers: Thus it is evident that the Government services are arrogating more and more powers to themselves.
In fact the power hungry bureaucrats have an inherent lust for power. The permanent civil service is becoming more and more impatient of the sham facade of democracy behind which it works and is showing progressively greater skill in using the forms of parliament and the convenient doctrine of ministerial responsibility as a cover for the steady increase of the power of the department. These units thus develop the tendency of being independent units.
They cease considering themselves as parts of a bigger whole and thus consider their own little empires as ends in themselves. Corruption is the malady of most democracies, Indian bureaucracy being no execution.
It has gone into the very root of the bureaucratic structure. Indian democracy has also inherited from the Britishers corrupt practices. The civil services are in general prone to illegal extortion of money from the people before doing their work. In USA spoil system still prevails though after the passage of Pendelton Act, it has been substantially curtailed.
The top bureaucrats who are political favorites become perfect yesmen of their political bosses. They, in their turn, expect yesmanship from their subordinate officers.
Thus a sort of vicious circle sets in. Right or wrong, the boss must be supported. Such a yes-man ship is eroding efficiency and lowering the morale of straightforward honest employees who do not wrongly toe the line of the high ups—political or non-political and are made to suffer by wrong placements or frequent transfers. He suggests remedies for these maladies as well.
Civil servants are after all mortals. They have defects and weaknesses typical of human nature. Each man loves his own brief moment of authority. A public servant attempts to make his public office yield private gain or uses his power to confer unfair advantage on some special group, of course under pressure. For instance, there had been a constant increase in the staff of the colonial office though the work of the office had been steadily decreasing after the grant of independence to colonies one after the other.
Parkinson is rightly of the view that officers make work for each other. If the supreme power is located in the hands of a king or dictator he may use civil servants to secure the attainment of his ends. In a subject country also the ruling power may so use the bureaucracy as to serve its ends as was done in India by British Government. But if the supreme power is located in the people, the civil servants cannot be unresponsive to their needs and dictatorial in attitude towards them.
In both the United States and Britain the social programmes of the New Deal and the Attlee government were carried through. They should get the praise where it is due and should not be unnecessarily criticized. In a modern age bureaucracy is a necessity and its outright condemnation is irrational; of course the system should be so built as to avoid unnecessary delay, red-tapism and formalism and checks should be so devised that bureaucrats may remain true servants of the people.
Therefore it is desirable to examine the safeguards which are necessary for keeping it under proper control without sacrificing its virtues so that public interest may be best served. In conclusion we may quote John A. Man for man and woman for woman, there is not now and there never has been any reason for believing them to be different from their fellow citizens who are self-employed or work in private industry. The bureaucracy is now so numerous that no citizen can indict it without indicting the nation itself.
It has certain maladies. Efforts are to be afoot to suggest some panacea so that bureaucracy becomes an asset to democracy. Max Weber, an eminent German sociologist, gave a systematic analysis of bureaucracy. The concept of Development Administration had originated in U. With their emphasis on rules and regulations, division of labour, hierarchy, role specialists, rationality, impersonally and neutrality, bureaucracy was expected to ensure smooth process of development.
In fact, bureaucracy played a key role in stability standard of integrity and professional competence. Bureaucracy supported industrialized developed nations to achieve their objectives. But the capacity of bureaucracy to adopt to change is rather low. In developing countries where temporal dimensions play a key role in process of development, according to some thinkers, bureaucracy is a misfit.
The Weberian model is subject to the dysfunctional consequences of failing to take into consideration the individual or behavioral aspects of people who work within organizational system.
It has been observed that in an unstable environment it cannot take up the challenges of situation. Stalker identified two distinct systems of management namely mechanistic and organic and found that mechanistic system of management which relied heavily on Weberian norms cannot function in an unstable environment whereas organic system of management with its emphasis on individuals, downward and lateral communication, continuous interaction and participatory management would be suitable for unstable environment.
Much of the bureaucratic pursuit was directed towards activities other than achievements of goals whereas the need was to fulfill development programs. According to Warren Bennis, bureaucracy is likely to go out of use in changed socio-economic environment. In Indian context bureaucracy, who emphasized on maintenance of law and order and generation of revenue has failed to fulfill developmental functions. It has generally been criticized as an authoritarian organization which emphasized on monopolization of power.
It has also been criticized for its elitist background. It has been assumed that members of bureaucracy who are urbane in outlook cannot sympathize with problems of rural people. Indian bureaucracy has also been criticized for its lack of commitment to developmental needs and programs. While development calls for progressiveness and dynamism on the part of bureaucracy, bureaucracy always took shelter under conservative neutrality.
Maximizing its own welfare. On the Positive Side it has been argued that. Firstly, the ancient bureaucracies were limited in size and scope. The ancient society was always of a small scale.
The resources were few as compared with those of modern times. The problems also were few and simple. Hence specialization of functions was carried to a very slight extent. The offices were few in number. The civil servant was much less specialized than his modern counterpart. In modern societies the resources have increased tremendously. The problems have become numerous and complex.
Some of these problems have become international in character. The modern civil servant is a highly specialized person. The number of civil servants has increased manifold. The modern bureaucracy is a huge structure surrounded by countless rules and millions of files. The social life of the majority was grouped on kinship and village basis.
Hence it was free from bureaucratic control. But today a large part of our life is controlled by bureaucracy. Even our personal matters like marriage and family are under the control of bureaucracy.
Thus the modern bureaucracy as compared to ancient one is vast both in size and scope. Secondly, the ancient bureaucracies were Governmental.
The bureaucracy was concerned with the administration of the Government. But the modern bureaucracies are not only governmental but also economic. The capitalistic system has played a major part in the growth of bureaucracy. The industrial Revolution changed the techniques of production. It replaced factories in place of households. In factories the work was divided up into little pieces. In course of time large factories were set up.
Corporations owning large plants came into being. There was mass production, division of labour and specialization. Different departments were set up to look after different aspects of production and exchange and other related matters. The growth of corporate business organisations created an urgent need for stable, strict and calculable administration. Large scale production in modern society strongly tends to foster the development of bureaucracy.
Along with governmental bureaucracies there has come into existence a wide network of economic bureaucracies. It may be noted that a socialistic form of organisation would not check the growth of economic bureaucracy rather it would create a still higher degree of bureaucratization.
Bureaucracy is a necessary aspect of modern culture. For the needs of mass administration today, it is completely indispensable.
Bureaucracy and the Church of God - Max Weber, German sociologist, social theorist, and economist, explicated the theory of bureaucracy in which he details the monocratic bureaucracy “as an ideal form that maximized rationality” (Bolman & Deal, , p. 48).
Essay on Bureaucracy: it’s Meaning and Growth! Meaning of Bureaucracy. The growth of Bureaucracy is a major social trend of modern society. It is found in .
Essay on Bureaucracy; Essay on Bureaucracy. Words 2 Pages. Bureaucracy The word “bureaucracy” has a negative connotation to many people. The fact is that our current system of government would not be able to survive without bureaucracies. The bureaucracy has become the “fourth branch” of the government, it has quasi-legislative and. Essay # 3. Characteristics of Bureaucracy: Max Weber in his Essays on Sociology has given three characteristics of bureaucracy: (i) The regular activities required for the purposes of the bureaucratically governed structure are distributed in a fixed way as official duties.
Bureaucracy Essay - Bureaucratic institutions were formed as a way to manage large-scale collective action, to increase organization and coordination. Max Weber is known for his analysis of the bureaucratic institution. In the Weberian sense, bureaucracies are composed of a hierarchical structure of authority in which command flows downward and. Nov 03, · This essay focuses on the assertion that “Too much and too little bureaucracy in an organization demotivate employees and cause them stress.” According to James & George (), bureaucracy is a formal system of organization and administration .