Introduction
1.
Concept of Bureaucracy
1.1. Meaning of Bureaucracy
The term Bureaucracy is derived from the latin word ‘bureau’ which means
‘desk’ and the Greek word ‘cracy’ or “kratia” which means ‘rule’. Thus it refers to the
desk rule or the desk government. The term ‘bureaucracy’ was coined by a
Frenchman, Vincent de Gournay, who first coined bureaucracy in 1965[1]. At the same
time, there are evidences that the word was used in its French form by a French
Minister of commerce, in the eighteenth century to refer to the government in
operation. The term came into use shortly before the French Revolution of 1789 and
from there spread rapidly to other countries. Bureaucracy did not exist in its basic
practical form in the earlier periods, but gained prominence in the nineteenth century
as a concept and an institutional format, for the accomplishment of large-scale
multiple and complex tasks. The emergence of the concept of efficiency in relation to
time, resources and productivity demanding efficient machinery for their effective coordination. Today, the bureaucracy is the major institution and social technique for
handling and controlling the affairs of modern nations[2].
Bureaucracy is the administrative structure of any large organization, public or
private. It is the government by permanent office-holders. Bureaucracy is a system of
administration wherein there is a specialization of functions, objective qualifications
for office, action according to the adherence to fixed rules, and a hierarchy of
authority and delegated power. Organizations such as the armed forces or
administrative agencies are common examples of bureaucracies. Bureaucracy is a
formal, hierarchical organization with many levels in which tasks, responsibilities and
authority are delegated among individuals, offices, or departments, held together by a
central administration. According to many sociologists and anthropologists, the
development of bureaucratic organizations is necessary for the emergence of any
modern civilization.
Today, the term bureaucracy suggests a lack of initiative, excessive adherence
to rules and routine, red tape, inefficiency, or, even more serious, an impersonal force
1
Introduction
dominating the lives of individuals. In Brief: A group of government or business
officials who use many laws and regulations to make decisions are bureaucrats.
Bureaucracy is the collective organizational structure, procedures, protocols
and set of regulations in place to manage activity, usually in large organizations and
government. As opposed to adhocracy, it is represented by standardized procedure
(rule-following) that guides the execution of most or all processes within the body;
formal division of powers; hierarchy; and relationships, intended to anticipate needs
and improve efficiency.
A bureaucracy traditionally does not create policy but, rather, enacts it. Law,
policy, and regulation normally originates from a leadership, which creates the
bureaucracy to put them into practice. In reality, the interpretation and execution of
policy, etc. can lead to informal influence. A bureaucracy is directly responsible to
the leadership that creates it, such as a government executive or board of directors.
Conversely, the leadership is usually responsible to an electorate, shareholders,
membership or whom-ever is intended to benefit. As a matter of practicality, the
bureaucracy is where the individual will interface with an organization such as a
government etc., rather than directly with its leadership. Generally, larger
organizations result in a greater distancing of the individual from the leadership,
which can be consequential or intentional by design.
Bureaucracy is a concept in sociology and political science referring to the
way that the administrative execution and enforcement of legal rules are socially
organized. Four structural concepts are central to any definition of bureaucracy:
1. a well-defined division of administrative labour among persons and offices,
2. a personnel system with consistent patterns of recruitment and stable linear
careers,
3. a hierarchy among offices, such that the authority and status are differentially
distributed among actors, and
4. formal and informal networks that connect organizational actors to one
another through flows of information and patterns of cooperation[3].
Examples of everyday bureaucracies include governments, armed forces,
corporations,
non-governmental
organizations
2
(NGOs),
inter-governmental
Introduction
organizations (IGOs), hospitals, courts, ministries, social clubs, sports leagues,
professional associations and academic institutions.
1.2. Definitions of Bureaucracy
Peter. M. Blau defines bureaucracy as “the type of organisation designed to
accomplish large scale administrative tasks by systematically coordinating the work
of many individuals” [4].
Lord Balfore stated about the civil servants or bureaucrats that, “though they
do not /cannot formulate the policy, they are responsible for it. Belonging to no party
they are for that very reason an invaluable element in Party Government. It is through
them, especially through their higher branches that the transference of responsibility
from one party or minister to another involves no destructive shock to the
administrative machine. There may be changes of directions but the curve is
smooth”[5]. These words lay emphasis on the explicit role and responsibility of a
bureaucrat or a civil servant in the modern public administration.
It was Max Weber, the great master mind German theoretician, who first
formulated the ideal type concept of bureaucracy and identified its characteristics,
although it is said that Weber did not define bureaucracy. He, instead, specified the
features of what he considered the most rational form of bureaucracy. Therefore,
almost every study of bureaucracy proceeds with a reference to his work.
Max Weber, bureaucracy’s most important academic expositor, gave the
following statements in ‘Economy and Society’ about bureaucracy:
As an instrument of rationally organizing authority relations, bureaucracy was
and is a power instrument of the first order, for one who controls the bureaucratic
apparatus. Where administration has been completely bureaucratized, the resulting
system of domination is practically indestructible.
In view of the growing indispensability of the state bureaucracy and its
corresponding increase in power how can there be any guarantee that any powers will
remain, which can check and effectively control the tremendous influence of this
stratum[6].
3
Introduction
The above passages explicitly show how well attuned Max Weber was to the
political power of the growing social phenomenon of bureaucracy. Bureaucracy has
become an important focus of political power
[7].
Many authors have thus tried to
analyze bureaucracy by focusing on its political power.
“The bureaucracy controls and manages the means of production through the
state. It provides the necessary organisation and proliferates opportunities for
bureaucratic careers by the creation of public bodies needing the officials and public
managers. It articulates an ideology of state ownership and planning. It organises the
means of its own reproduction by passing on to the off springs disproportionately,
advantageous opportunities to obtain the qualification needed for entry into
bureaucratic occupations and therefore the new class” [8].
These words by B.C.Smith clearly insinuate the hierarchical and nepotic
nature of the bureaucracy.
Ali Farazmand (2009) in his writings on ‘Bureaucracy and Administration’
has given three major connotations or meanings of bureaucracy
[9].
The first one,
being the traditional view of the Weberian model of bureaucracy (1947), which is also
characterized as an ideal type bureaucracy. The second refers to any large
organization or institution structured with missions, functions and processes and with
significant impact on its internal and external environments. Waldo (1992) adopted
this meaning and it applies to the federal bureaucracy or the local bureaucracy. The
third is referred to as ‘dynamic’ and extends to military and security bureaucratic
institutions of government and governance in public and private sectors. Ali
Farazmand also throws light on the three theoretical perspectives on bureaucracy for
analytical purposes. The first one views bureaucracy positively, as the machinery of
government, a necessary and essential system to organize and run the government
affairs in both domestic and international relations. The second one views
bureaucracy negatively, as rigid, slow, pathological, functional, obstacle, stifling,
dehumanizing and objectifying human and social life. It also criticizes bureaucracy
for being undemocratic and unaccountable to electorate citizens in democracies. The
third one is more realistic and balanced, where bureaucracy has two sides like a coin,
representing both good and bad or positive and negative ways at the same time.
4
Introduction
2.
Nature of Public Bureaucracy
Public Bureaucracy is strongly associated with elitism and therefore depicts an
unrepresentative nature. Being the part of the public bureaucracy, the bureaucrats
represent the elite class and by default are supposed to be successful and powerful.
A bureaucratic organization is governed by the following seven principles:
1.
Official business is conducted on a continuous basis.
2.
Official business is conducted with strict accordance to the following
rules:
a) the duty of each official to do certain types of work is delimited in
terms of impersonal criteria
b) the official is given the authority necessary to carry out his assigned
functions
c) the means of coercion at his disposal are
conditions of their use strictly defined.
strictly limited and
3. Every official's responsibilities and authority are part of a vertical hierarchy of
authority, with respective rights of supervision and appeal
4. Officials do not own the resources necessary for the performance of their
assigned functions but are accountable for the use of these resources
5. Official and private business and income are strictly separated.
6. Offices cannot be appropriated by their incumbents (inherited, sold, etc.)
7. Official business is conducted on the basis of written documents[10]
The administrative machine can never be put to a stop, with the operators of
this machine working with objectivity and impersonality. The official or legal
authority given to an officer is strictly limited and well defined. An officer’s
responsibilities and authority are defined by a definite system of hierarchy. There is
no concept of ownership and the officers are accountable for the resources they need
to put into use for the sake of the public service. An official must exercise his or her
judgment and his or her skills, but his or her duty is to place these at the service of a
higher authority; ultimately he/she is responsible only for the impartial execution of
assigned tasks and must sacrifice his or her personal judgment if it runs counter to his
or her official duties. Administration is based on written documents.
5
Introduction
2.1.
Indian Bureaucracy vis-à-vis the Weberian Model in Post-Independence
Era
Irrespective of the nature of the political systems, all modern bureaucracies
possess the Weberian characteristics to varying degrees. The Indian bureaucracy also
exhibits some of these characteristics to the following extents:
a) Hierarchy of Authority
It goes without saying that while the Indian bureaucracy is strictly maintaining
the hierarchy of authority, as envisaged in the traditional bureaucracy, the decisionmaking processes have become extremely slow, subjective and authoritative in nature,
leaving lesser scope for participative and dynamic decisions. This characteristic has
been limited to the supervision of the lower officers by the higher ones in India.
b) Division of labour
While specializations have gained impetus in various areas, the spirit of team
work and coordination have remained wanting in the Indian bureaucracy. It has paved
the way for the shunning of responsibility. Accountability mechanism is deeply
affected, as nobody owns the complete responsibility of the product or the project
c) Presence of Rule .
The rule of law has been adopted in such an extreme form, that the menace of
`red tapism' has got permanently embedded in the system, causing a delay in all its
proceedings. Weber’s model has exhibited a dysfunctional potential and resulted in a
pathological behavior of an Indian bureaucrat.
d) Procedural Specification
The procedures adopted in the present day administration are not technically
sound and need to the revisited. The outcome of this procedural specification is `redtapism' and corruption in its highest form. “Procedures” rather than “results” are given
more importance in the Indian administration.
e) Impersonality
Impersonality is completely non-existent in the get up of Indian bureaucracy.
Personal biases and preferences are quite evident. lnfact, nepotism has emerged due to
personal preferences rather than impersonality. Much regard is given to the individual
persons involved in all the spheres.
6
Introduction
f) Technical competence
Technical competence and merit were the criteria of appointment in public
bureaucracy; but all kinds of social pulls and pressures operate in making
appointments, thus diluting merit. Norms of behaviour of public servants are
determined by following procedures and rules and regulations in administration.
Every day deviation from procedures is seen these days.
With the initiation of the process of national planning , heavy responsibility
now rests with the administrators for fulfilling welfare goals in the society. The
function accruing to the governmental bureaucracy thus goes beyond the traditional
frame of reference of a Laissez fare state. The officials are now called upon to act as
catalyst to the process of social and economic transformation. It has been generally
argued that economic development of society, particularly if it is to be implemented
by a massive intervention of the public sector, requires a different kind of a
bureaucrat. Thus, one needs a bureaucrat who is more freewheeling, less adhering to
administrative forms, less attached to the importance of hierarchy and seniority.
The Indian bureaucracy can mainly be categorised as the “traditional
bureaucracy” rather than the “developmental bureaucracy”. The traditional concept of
bureaucracy stems out of the Weberian characteristics. Till date, the Indian
Bureaucracy has existed without any compulsions of responsiveness to the people’s
needs, demands, aspirations and desires. Being a developing nation, we need to shift
towards the developmental bureaucracy, where we are also concerned with promoting
creativity and growth along with the stability of the system. The success in the
developmental activities cannot be achieved without the concurrence and active
involvement of the people. There needs to be a proper amalgamation of the traditional
bureaucracy and the developmental bureaucracy. The governments need to speed up
the economic growth and development by evolving appropriate changes in systems,
rules, procedures, attitudes, behaviour and orientation.
In the developed western countries, the main function of the bureaucracy is
system maintenance. Whereas, in a developing country like India, no function of
bureaucracy is purely a maintenance function, as all functions are part of the
“development process” mainly.
7
Introduction
2.2.
The Dynamics of Bureaucratic Power
Public bureaucracy has become a politically powerful force in the modern
society. The main basis of bureaucratic power can be explained from Weber’s
concept. Thus the power bases are mostly inherent in the nature of the bureaucracy
itself. All bureaucracies share certain legal, material and strategic organisational
resources. The law is the principle power resource for bureaucracy, making it the
purest type of legal authority. Bureaucrats have an access to the monetary, capital,
budgets, equipment, personnel- technocrats and non-technocrats, and other material
resources which attributes to their power. The bureaucrats are the monopoly providers
of the services – public is largely dependent on them. They are also permanent actors
and enjoy the power of continuity. This provides them with the strategic
organisational resources, to the maximum, when they have the advantages of the
expertise, knowledge and specialisation also going for them. This resource also
enhances their ability to affect the context of decision making.
Ultimately the political issues become the bureaucratic issues because
bureaucrats have the action [11]. The policies have to be executed by the bureaucrats
finally. Besides, politics is endowed with the characteristic feature of being all
pervasive and thus it pervades into the bureaucratic system all too smoothly.
“Although the administrative process is politically colourless in that it has no
distinctive political character of its own, it does have a particular chameleonic quality
of taking on the colour of the substantive programme to which it is attached, and it is
always attached to a substantive programme”[12].
These lines signify a lot of implications.
The public administrators regulate the society playing important roles in the
formation as well as the implementation of public policies. These public
administrators do not operate in an antiseptic environment, which is free from
political forces. Bureaucrats are the key participants in making decisions that affect
politics in the most basic way. Thus, they are subject to political pressures. Ideally,
8
Introduction
they should not be giving in to these political pressures and should remain politically
neutral.
In most of the countries of the world, the ideal model of bureaucratic “neutral
competence”
has
been
replaced
by
a
politico-administrative
relationship,
characterized by more complex patterns of interaction and interdependence. It
portrays a two-way street model phenomenon. On the one hand, there is
“politicization of the bureaucracy”- the policy makers have increasingly come to
realize that the public administration is a source of tremendous executive powers and
capabilities which require strong political control to ensure that they serve the
objectives formulated by the policy makers. On the other hand, there is
“bureaucratization of politics” - the civil service has become politically more
assertive, more engaged in creating networks and linkages to other organisations and
more inclined to use its discretion to pursue its own interests and ideals due to its
higher degree of continuity and specialized expertise [13].
Even the most democratically conceived government comes to behave as if its
own survival, rather than the people’s welfare, is the paramount good. This happens
because the government’s ordinary day to day operations depend on entrenched
“public servants” – the bureaucrats – who are always most concerned about protecting
and expanding their own power [14]. They come to think of government as a kind of a
private institution that exists for their sake and this makes them deeply committed to
preserving the system, which they have come to believe of as “their system”. Thus,
they want nothing to threaten the system because that would threaten their self
interests.
There is no doubt that for effectiveness of performance, the strength and the
stability that the status gives the civil service, are the indispensible factors. But that, in
no way, means that the bureaucracy can be unduly preoccupied with the legal
foundations of its existence. The fact is that its own conduct as an agency of serving
the public interest is the best guarantee of its status and subsequently its effective
performance. This might explain why bureaucracy cherishes “its status” as an
institutional basis and as a source of its functional identity in the structure of the
modern government.
9
Introduction
2.3.
Characteristics of a Bureaucrat
The relative importance of the various qualities shall vary with the individual
differences and the institutional situations. It seems impossible to expect the existence
of all the qualities in one individual, but the short comings could easily be overcome
by working in administrative teams, where the qualities of the members complement
each other and synergy comes into play. The administrative capacities to be
considered in a bureaucrat, after his personal character and motivation are:
a) Willingness to assume responsibility
b) Steadily enlarging ability to deal with more problems, more varied problems
and more diverse people.
c) Strong bent towards action.
d) Good listener and then a good initiator.
e) Usually effective with people, with quick emotional perceptions.
f) Ability to build the competence of his organisation, by harnessing the abilities
of his employees and also by appointing the ablest people.
g) Ability to use the institutional resources, ideas and information.
h) Aims at effectiveness and avoids using power or authority for personal sake.
i) Possesses self confidence and confesses his ignorance or personal faults.
j) Encourages the hearing of the troublesome or undesirable issues and then
passes them on to higher authorities for quick rectifications and remedies.
k) A team worker and a hard but fair task master.
l) A dynamic initiator and development administrator.
m) Exhibiting honesty, simplicity, humility and sensitivity in all his dealings[15].
The civil servants, who were supposed to be very powerful once, are not so
now, because the expectations of the people are fast changing. Instead of being a
source of control, the service is now expected to serve the people. The bureaucrats are
now accountable for their performance to the public. This also explains the
significance of the change of nomenclature of the bureaucrats from the ‘Government
10
Introduction
Servants’ to the ‘Public Servants’. The officials have to render service to the public
and are at the same time accountable to them.
3. Sociological Features of Bureaucracy
3.1.
Bureaucratic Accessibility to Public
Bureaucracy has to be readily available to the public at all times. It is
imperative in the present times that the public has access to the administration,
whenever the need arises. In fact, the bureaucrats and their services should be at the
disposal of the citizens round the clock. This signifies the bureaucratic accessibility. It
is very important for the bureaucracy to possess a favourable public image. The public
can only conceive a positive image of the bureaucracy when they are in constant
interaction with the public administrators and are kept abreast regarding all the
administrative happenings. This contact and communication between the public and
the administrators harbours trust between the two. This relationship of trust further
leads to the acceptance of the bureaucracy by the public. The phenomenon of
acceptance is very important for facilitating a kind of relationship between the two, to
an extent where both the good qualities as well as the follies of the bureaucracy are
accepted or taken along in the stride by the public.
Most countries have experienced extensive political and administrative
reforms, aiming at reducing the distance between the citizens and the public
administration. Even now, the general direction of the administrative reforms in the
western, developed countries is towards bridging of the gap between the citizens and
the state. The main reason for this is that the public administration has been struggling
to reaffirm its legitimacy in the civil society since quite some time now. Secondly, the
heyday of massive spending by the public bureaucracy is gone and has instead been
replaced by new budgetary levels and new administrative roles and purposes.
One of the many initiatives taken to increase the bureaucratic accessibility is
in the concept of ‘Burgernahe’ (closeness to citizens) in Germany. It has become the
short hand expression for reducing the geographical, political and administrative
distance between the citizens and the authorities [16]. In the developing countries, there
is a consistent effort towards reducing the tensions between the public and the
11
Introduction
bureaucracy. For this purpose, efforts need to be made for higher bureaucratic
autonomy, which shall eventually lead to better service delivery, and hence better
relations between the two.
The policy makers can use their capabilities in the formal, legal sense, to alter
the relationship between the public administration and the civil society. First, they can
redesign public administration in order to make it more accessible to civil society.
They can also introduce new measures of bureaucratic efficiency like in terms of
customer satisfaction. This would give impetus to the customer-driven process of
public service delivery. Secondly, they can revise the legal framework in order to
strengthen the position of the citizen vis-à-vis the bureaucracy [17].
One of the main preconditions for learning of the administrative techniques
and processes by the bureaucrats is the complete consistent interaction between the
public and the bureaucracy. Besides, acting as stimuli for the administrative
behaviour, the public also provides the base for the feedback mechanism which
entails better and improved bureaucratic performance in future. After independence,
bureaucrats were gradually viewed as strangers and usurpers. The bureaucracy was
accused of apathy to the public cause and unresponsive to the public problems and
thus seen as a repulsive entity. Even today, the bureaucracy seems to have isolated
itself from the common man and thus is unable to cope with the socio-economic
changes and the ever rising aspirations of the people, in the developing nations. But
due to the introduction of the social welfare state in India, ways of democratic
planning started afresh. People’s participation in almost everything also becomes very
important. Eventually, all this led to an increase in the points of contact between the
citizens and the officials. This necessitated a change in the administrator’s attitude
and behaviour towards the public. They needed to show genuine concern and feelings
for the welfare of the citizens. At the same time, the bureaucrats started to deliver
better, as they started learning while delivering the services. The first hand contact
with the masses proved to be beneficial, for their performance.
Normally, a common man is made to wait for long hours before he can meet a
civil servant. Then finally when he gets the chance, he is made to feel like an intruder
in the domain of the official, by his attitude of snobbery and indifference. It has been
seen that the prerequisite for any drastic or dramatic improvement in the quality of the
12
Introduction
performance of the bureaucracy, is a greater degree of assertiveness of the public
opinion and the greater awareness on the part of the general public.
It is quite clear that significant advances in the functional efficiency of the
administrative state cannot be expected without the corresponding changes in the
working style of the administrative system. The most important thing is the
reorientation of the bureaucracy towards its role. The civil servants must shift their
attention from “watching processes” to measuring their impact, from “getting things
done” to giving each citizen his due, from the “technology of administration” to its
effect upon the general public, from “utility” to “ethics”[18].
There has to be a trend towards ‘popular control’ which is no doubt very
difficult to achieve. It has two interpretations. First is the ability of the people to make
its preferences known to the bureaucracy and to have the bureaucracy make decisions
consistent with those expressed preferences. Second is the ability of the citizens to
obtain redress of grievances for certain administrative actions that violate the rights of
individuals.
Fortunately, with the use of information technology and the spread of mass
education and mass media, the role and functioning of bureaucrats and public servants
is coming under effective public scrutiny. People are getting more exposed to the
merits and attitudes and actions of the bureaucrats. The bureaucracy needs to show
empathy towards the problems of the citizens and reduce the menace of red tapism.
In order to increase the points of contact between the bureaucracy and the
public, the concept of “seamless governments” has come into existence[19]. Seamless
organisations provide a smooth, transparent, almost effortless experience for their
customers. The staff stays in direct contact with their end users while performing their
job. Seamless governments provide the seam less service i.e. any time, any place,
through e-governance technology, using sophisticated software. This provides the
administrators with too many new and imaginative ways to do the public’s business.
Thus, efforts are consistently on for increasing the bureaucratic accessibility the world
over.
13
Introduction
3.2.
Privatization and Public Private Partnerships in Public Sector
Privatization is the phenomenon where the ownership of production units or
service delivery systems goes into the hands of the private persons. The government
gives up the ownership of certain units of the public sector and invites the private
parties to take over completely. There has been a change in the “balance between the
public and the private sector” activities. In the developing countries like ours, the
changes have been induced by adjustment programmes advocated by the World Bank
and the International Monetary Fund. Subsesh K. Das has referred to the most
prominently suggested meaning of “privatization” as “denationalization” or transfer
of ownership into private hands, in his paper on “Privatization”. However,
privatization covers a range of policy initiatives designed to alter the balance between
the public and the private sectors[20]. Complete denationalization is the extreme form
of privatization.
Since 1990’s substantial reform policies have been introduced in the field of
trade, industrial policies, and the long term objective of making economy more
efficient and competitive. A key component in all this is the reduction in the role of
the state by increasing the role of the private sector. Denationalization or privatization
reduces the budgetary pressure on the government. However, the return from the sale
of assets is a once and for all benefit. It also forfeits the future stream of income for
the government. Therefore, different forms of public private partnerships (PPPs) seem
to be more feasible. In public private partnership, both the government and the private
party put in their stakes and carry out the projects together under a partnership. Here
the risks and the benefits are shared by both, throughout. The delivery through the
PPP models has been found to be more cost effective and efficient.
Throughout the world, there are severe problems facing the administration. If
these problems are to be solved, public bureaucracy has to be made more effective.
Thus, it is important to harness the forces of competition and competence to create a
flexible and intelligent public bureaucracy. These forces seem to have worked
wonders in the private sector [21].
The Governments in general have proved to be uneconomic, inefficient and
ineffective. This raises certain questions wittingly or unwittingly – whether the role of
14
Introduction
the state should be limited and re-evaluated? The capability, desirability and
management skills of the public services are being questioned. On the other hand,
private sector management is too rigorous and economical. Certain changes need to
be brought about in the policy and programme orientation of the governments to make
them more effective, responsive and accountable. There is a need to limit the ability
of the governments to significantly intervene in the social and economical life of the
state. The government structures should be re-invented and amalgamated with the
private sector, in order to improve the goods and services.
Due to the process of liberalization and globalization, transnational
corporations have emerged and occupied a superior position than the Indian
bureaucracy. Therefore, these days many important members of the higher
bureaucracy have been found to be standing in a queue to join these global
corporations. This has a great impact on the structure of bureaucracy leading to its
internal weaknesses, as the bureaucrats seem to be either demanding very high
emoluments or joining the multinational corporations [22].
Administrative development is essential for national development goals and
values. To achieve all this, bureaucracy can guide the private sector organizations to
do the job, it used to do alone. It can reduce the burden of functions and
responsibilities by helping and facilitating others to do it. This way it sheds its
workload and empowers the civil society and the private sector, thus diffusing
responsibilities.
Private bureaucracy has a different power structure which controls all
significant aspects of life in a society [23]. But in private bureaucracy, public dealing is
limited and the officials are under certain pressure to conform to norms of the
organization. The appointments or recruitment system, the promotions or seniority
and the modes of functioning of a public bureaucracy and a private bureaucracy are
different to a great extent. Ultimately all these factors attribute towards the success of
a private bureaucracy in comparison to the public bureaucracy.
3.3.
Red Tapism in Bureaucracy
Eventually the bureaucrats have perfected a mechanism universally called
“Red Tape”. All the government departments operate through this much decoded
15
Introduction
mechanism. Red tapism signifies a fastidious system of administrative operations,
where hierarchical procedures and inflexible rules are strictly adhered to. All the
agencies advocating the improvement of the citizens have been time and again and
critically analyzing this state of affairs. This word “Red Tape” came into vogue, when
in 1696, a tape of pinkish red colour was used in securing legal and other documents.
With time, this term has been derogated to commute delays and inefficiency of the
government. The tentacles of red tape have been tightening with each passing day,
increasing its deleterious effects. There exists an obvious apathy to public queries and
grievances. The bureaucrats are living in an elite world, which seems to be far
removed from the one they are supposed to serve.
Bureaucratic authority is more committed to orderly procedures rather than
the goals. The failure of regulations to induce appropriate behavior on the part of the
bureaucrats is generally interpreted to be a failure in implementation [24]. The people
have nowadays come to abhor officialdom. Officialdom has given rise to
victimization, where payments called “speed money” are being made to speed up the
disposal of the matter/papers. C.M. Parkinson in his paper on “Excessive Controls and
Bureaucracy” has enumerated the six characteristics of bureaucracy. He has signified
the appallingly complex bureaucratic characteristics of administration where the
complexity has the tendency to grow even more complex. According to Parkinson, all
the characteristics of bureaucracy ultimately culminate into the feature of
ineffectiveness, due to lack of purpose and lack of speed. Eventually “delay becomes
denial”, as little is attempted and nothing is achieved [25].
There is no doubt that the large scale organizations and “red-tape” are
intimately connected. Group action is always enveloped in procedure and yet
frequently eluding responsibilities. Like today’s decision-making is a group process
No decision is reached without being a part of a specified operating method, pinned
down by checks and balances, reviews and concurrences, supporting files and staff
papers
[26].
We definitely do not want our bureaucrats acting arbitrarily or stealing
from the public treasury, but we do expect them to be able to react with speed when
the situation calls for such action. We also expect some independent, professional
judgments from them. We do not want to hem our public employees in with such
16
Introduction
strict rules that would add to red tape and frustration of dealing with our own
government.
According to citizens, a responsive administration is the one which guarantees
a definite and clear response to their problems within a specified time limit. To create
such a system, there is a need to re-engineer the governments, creating a “seamless
government service” where the staff is in direct contact with its end users [27]. This can
be brought about through e-governance using IT technologies, where transparency
and efficiency are the new maxims. This would also lead to administrative
decentralization, where decision-making would be done quickly and cheaply [28]. The
services shall automatically improve.
3.4.
Rigidity of Rules in Bureaucracy
Strict adherence to inflexible rules and regulations is very evident in the
bureaucratic system, leading to the rigidity of rules. The structure of the
administrative system is very formal and impersonal rules and regulations are enacted
to maximize efficiency and to facilitate rational decisions. The working behaviour and
the attitudes of the bureaucrats are governed by a set of rules. Accordingly to Weber,
a bureaucratic organization is governed by a “constituent system of abstract rules” and
the activities of individual members “consist in the application of these rules to
particular cases”. This set of abstract rules provides objectivity, calculability and
impersonality to bureaucratic actions
[29].
Rules are thus necessary for the efficient
conduct of day to day administration. Gouldner has listed many functional aspects of
rules like specificity of communication, fixing responsibility, impersonal control,
legitimization of authority and punishment. The execution of all administrative work
is to be thus in accordance with rules and law, and the chief law is the good of the
people.
Therefore, one of the major characteristics of bureaucracy is the application of
inflexible rules by the officials, which are often opposed to mere common sense. But,
this is also important to safeguard the official’s position, narrowly restricting his
powers. Subsequently, this leads to appallingly complex procedures in administration,
resulting in ineffectiveness due to lack of purpose and lack of speed. The normal
17
Introduction
conclusion is the “delay”. Ultimately “delay becomes denial”, as centralization
becomes frustration, departmentalism becomes inaction, inflexibility becomes
idleness and complexity becomes decay. Slowly and majestically the whole
machinery of the government grinds to stand still [30].
Parkinson has also referred to a “plethora of legislation”, wherein the world is
covered by numerous acts of the parliament and number of committees and the end
result is the creation of mountains of papers between them. Undoubtedly, as the
professors of jurisprudence say that law is the regulator of human conduct. But no law
can effectively work unless there is an element of acceptance by the people in the
society. In actual practice, rigidity for rules and procedural delays give rise to corrupt
practices.
Adherence to rules leads to impersonal administration which provides
regularity, detachment and calculability. But it also leads to the disregard of person.
At the same time, there is a tremendous scope of growth for personalized relationships
to develop and informality to exist in patches. The Indian administrative bureaucracy
having its foundation in the British administration, has a well developed infrastructure
of rules. But, heavy emphasis on rules and routine can be detrimental to change,
developmental tasks and activities. Any administration needs to be more dynamic and
different. Therefore, the dysfunctional consequences found in strict rules and
procedures are delay, red tapism, unresponsiveness, avoidance of responsibility and
quest for power and corruption. Devotion to rules also leads to their transformation
[31].
into “absolutes” and “an end in itself”
This increases the tendency of un-
productivity and inefficiency in the system.
Sudarshan Kumar Goyal in his research on “Bureaucratic Administration in
India”, conducted the survey of the ideal-role perceptions of the bureaucrats (1985)
and found that the bureaucrats exhibited three distinct patterns of orientations towards
rules.
i.
they have high orientation to give preference to rules of work parse
rather than efficiency need of the situation and initiative,
ii.
they show low orientation towards rules of office discipline and
interpersonal relations and
18
Introduction
iii.
they show low
considerations[32].
orientation
towards
rules
over
personal
This implies that in actual practice, both inflexibility of rules of work and
flexibility of rules of conduct are operative in bureaucracy. Both of these are used in
such a way as to lead to inefficient goal displacement.
Larry. B. Hill has described law as the principle source of bureaucratic power.
Hill has quoted Weber’s theory of rational legal basis for the bureaucratization of
modern states. In fact, Weber has identified bureaucracy as the “purest type of
exercise of legal authority”. All said and done, rules have been increasingly relied
upon by societies to assure fairness of treatment and equality among citizens. Infact,
bureaucratization has resulted in such fundamental transformation whereby rules
themselves have become the primary means of social change. Highly rule bound
organizations are normally closed from the environment. But if rules originate
externally and if they are imposed upon an organization through conformity
mechanisms, then rule boundedness becomes a manifestation of openness rather than
a source of closeness [33].
If the civil service consciously accepts the primacy of public opinion, then it is
prone to attach greater value to precedent and procedure as anchors in the winds of
pressure. The written rule becomes more important as a railing to which to hold to,
when the waves of public sentiment sweep freely across the deck [34]. A civil servant
will more often act on the “rule of reason”, assuming personal responsibility for his
actions, only when he has complete assurance of his knowledge and experience and
he feels secure vis-à-vis his position and status.
There is considerable debate going on over the merits of the formal control
systems in the field of public administration. There is an immense need to loosen
these constraints and move towards deregulation and delegation of authority down the
line. Initially, regulations had been developed to curb abuses by the government. But
time has proved that this strategy was not so successful. On the contrary, it has
resulted mainly in reducing the efficiency of the government. There is, thus, an
increasing call for increasing flexibility and management discretion
[35].
New
initiatives can be adopted to achieve the same, while at the same time, improving the
19
Introduction
accountability mechanism of the government. The fact is that if the safe guards
provided by the present system are abolished, there is a chance of further diminishing
the popular trust in the fairness and openness of government.
3.5.
Bureaucratic Leadership and its Implications for Public
Bureaucracy needs an efficient and effective foundation and orientation,
provided by a responsible leader, so that it can function and flourish. Bureaucratic
leadership can be established by an officer by two important things, firstly through his
technical or specialized knowledge or skill and secondly, through his conduct towards
his colleagues and his subordinates. Officers who can exhibit leadership have to be
free from the vices like corruption and have to be professionally competent. Besides,
they need to be highly educated and well informed. Officers like these are
indispensable to the organization. Only 4% of our bureaucrats possess such leadership
qualities [36]. Our bureaucratic leadership is cracking down. Actually the staff or the
officers unions exert pressure from the lower ranks, whereas their political executives
support these unions or associations for their political gains. A demoralized
bureaucrat thus resorts to easy tactics and becomes part of the system.
Bureaucratic leadership is the institutional leadership in the administration of
public bureaucracies within the executive branch of all levels of government. It is an
active process that emanates from the executive branch and entails the exercise of
power, authority and strategic discretion in pursuit of the public interests. But
bureaucratic leadership is feared by the common people as the expansion of public
bureaucracy is viewed as a threat to democracy by many [37]. Public is actually hostile
towards the power that the bureaucratic leadership exudes.
Leadership in the present day has become a visionary driver that engages its
organization in developing its road map. Today senior executive leadership needs to
have total visibility, so that it can make strategic decisions rather than merely react to
crises and put out fires [38].
Good and effective leadership should be insisted upon by the citizens as their
duty. There is a need for greater knowledge and education within the public for the
same. Besides, to become better leaders, bureaucrats have to strive not only to provide
good, effective and responsible administration of public services, but to go beyond
20
Introduction
and become creative agents of governmental change and reform. Therefore,
bureaucratic leadership needs to be fully trained, capable, knowledgeable and attuned
to the needs of the public service.
Genuine development programs under genuine leadership can produce
genuine results and achieve intended objectives. Alternatively, bureaucratic leadership
may be used as an instrument of rule and keeping development under check, so that
according to Amsden (2007), development suffers and dies even before having a
chance to breathe.
Different aspects of administration like policy determination, programme
planning, supervision, coordination, motivation and communication are meshed with
each other, to produce the total result. Bureaucratic leadership runs throughout this
composite process, supplying incentives and motivation. Thus, any change in
leadership and dependence of leaders on higher authority, opens organization to
environmental influences. So, whenever shifts in administrative patterns are sought,
they are obtained most efficiently through changes in the bureaucratic leadership and
fundamental alterations in organizational structures [39].
3.6.
Bureaucratic Dysfunction through Corruption
Corruption, as an ethical and moral impurity, has become an inevitable aspect
of bureaucratic structure. Bureaucracy becomes dysfunctional when its main goals,
mission and functions of serving broad-based public interests are replaced with rules
and procedures, bribery and corruption. Corruption anywhere and anytime is illegal
and unethical.
Corruption in public administration is eating away into the vitals of the socioeconomic setup. Because of its manifold increase, it has resulted in the loss of faith of
the public in public administration. Corruption is not inherent in the democratic
system and therefore, it is not impossible to root it out. While corruption in the
political leadership can be eliminated by throwing out such corrupt politicians, there
is however, no system of throwing out the corrupt bureaucrats – the procedures being
very tedious and futile.
21
Introduction
With the passage of time, payments to officialdom for getting the things done
have come to be described as “speed money”
[40].
The citizens are aware that the
officials are prone to delay the disposal of their papers and that payments of this
“speed money” always induces them to dispose off their papers expeditiously. The
charges of corruption have come to be recognized as unwritten rules, and therefore
have started to incapacitate the administrative system. Mainly, the corrupt culture is
flourishing because the administrative system and the rules have been made
subservient to those who can pull the right strings. The Vigilance Organization or the
Anti-corruption Bureaus do not seem too keen on fighting corruption seriously.
Powerful vested interests are responsible for derailing the “clean-up” operations at the
earliest opportunity. The public have realized that economic and social costs of
corruption are virtually devastating and that corruption demoralizes the civil service
and adversely affects its performance. It is actually the poor citizens who suffer the
most in the corruption ridden administration.
Weber has considered bureaucracy as capable of attaining the highest degree
of efficiency [41]. Although, the basic motive of a bureaucratic system is the rational
and efficient achievement of goals, as Weber has emphasized, but at the same time,
bureaucracy carries with it, the seeds of its own inefficiency. Inefficiency is, because
of the dysfunctions of bureaucracy, related to its internal stresses and strains.
Corruption is one of the main dysfunctions of bureaucracy.
Corruption is a deviation of individual or individuals from the accepted legal
norms of bureaucratic functioning. It leads to personal gain or profit, largely in
material terms. Sociologically, the causes of corruption are dominantly structural
rather than ethical. Administrative delays and red tapism are supposed to be major
causes of corruption. Corruption can be institutionalized or un-institutionalized, where
the former implies that the whole department or organization is corrupt and the latter
means that an individual is personally involved in corruption. Those departments
which have greater public dealing or higher concentrations of power have been
reported to be more corrupt. The structural differentiation related to power in public
and private bureaucracies and the internal dynamics of their functioning are
responsible for the low extent of corruption in private bureaucracy [42].
22
Introduction
Maharaj Krishan Kaw in his paper on “What Ails Indian Bureaucracy?” has
signified corruption as one of the major issues that ails our bureaucracy. He believes
that it is so, because both the politicians and bureaucrats have relinquished their
traditional roles of keeping an eye on one another. Now both seem to have reconciled
with the idea that both can profit with mutual understanding and cooperation. As
Chief Vigilance Commissioner, N.Vittal, had tried to tackle the issue of corruption in
bureaucracy by drafting a three-point strategy, which was referred to by him in his
paper on “Measures to Combat Corruption in Bureaucracy”. The strategy is as
follows:
a)
Simplification of rules and procedures so that the scope of corruption
is reduced.
b)
Transparency and empowerment of the public.
c)
Effective punishment of the corrupt[43].
At the same time, there is a need to encourage and subsequently protect the
whistle blowers.
The basic defect in the electoral process starts the vicious cycle of corruption
in our country. Political corruption leads to bureaucratic corruption which in turn
leads to business corruption and also criminalization of politics. Corruption has
become a low risk, high profit activity in our country. Even though, we have plethora
of laws, they are not having any deterrent effect at all. Most of the time, corruption
flourishes in our bureaucracy
because of delays, lack of transparency and the
protection given to the corrupt on the very healthy legal principle that everybody is
innocent till proven guilty. These are the “legal cushions of safety” [44].
Whistle blowers in Bureaucracy
A whistle blower is a person who exposes corruption or inefficiency. In an
effort to help build team India that will help create awareness over the prevalence of
corruption in the system and empowerment of the citizens in their fight against
corruption, Central Vigilance Commission, has taken an initiative in setting up “Blow
your Whistle” technology. A whistle blower is a person who tells the public or
someone in authority about alleged dishonest or illegal activities (misconduct)
occurring in a government department or a private organization.
23
Introduction
Whistle blower Protection in India refers to provisions put in place in order to
protect someone who exposes alleged wrong doing. The wrong doing may take the
form of fraud, corruption or mismanagement. There have been multiple instances of
threatening, harassment and even murder of various whistle blowers. India still does
not have a law to protect whistle blowers. However, the “Public Interest Disclosure”
and “Protection To Persons Making The Disclosures bill, 2010”, was approved by the
cabinet of India, as part of a drive to eliminate corruption in the country’s
bureaucracy.
Over the past five years, some 150 whistle blowers have allegedly been
harassed or jailed for exposing corruption, while as many as 20 have been killed. The
catalyst for these false or dubious prosecutions, assaults and murders was the passage
of the ground breaking Right to information Act (RTI) in 2005. By giving ordinary
citizens the right to access virtually any government document, the law cracked open
a tortuous, bureaucratic system that had been a virtual, black box since the days of
India’s colonization. It made refusal to divulge information, a jailable offence.
Activists are seeking a quick passage of the Whistle blowers Protection Bill in
Parliament. The demands are that a law should be framed to protect whistle blowers,
facilitate the disclosure of information and uncover corruption, in government
organizations.
The term whistle blowing is a relatively recent entry into the vocabulary of
public and corporate affairs, although the phenomenon itself is not new. It refers to
the process by which insiders go public with their claims of malpractices by, or
within, organizations – usually after failing to remedy the matters from the inside, and
often at great personal risk to themselves.
3.7.
Death of the Public Bureaucracy
The extinction or at least a decline of the public bureaucracy does not seem a
far away possibility in the present circumstances. The death of the public bureaucracy
seems inevitable if the public goes on harbouring the negative perceptions against it.
A professionally competent and politically neutral bureaucracy is essential for smooth
and efficient functioning of a democratic polity. Our constitution provides the frame
work for a splendid administrative structure. In spite of the iron clad guarantees
24
Introduction
incorporated in the constitution for the civil services; the Civil Servants could not
resolutely stand by the constitution and the law in the trying circumstances. Neither
could they play any role in holding together a country of great disparities, nor could
they provide a uniformly high standard of administration, as had been envisaged by
our former leaders. The bureaucracy no longer serves the purpose for which it was
established. The reasons responsible for this decline and degeneration of bureaucracy
were mainly conversion of mass politics into manipulative parlour politics, large scale
corruption, criminalization and electoral malpractice. All this was facilitated by total
absence of transparency and accountability.
Even some social scientists in recent times have predicted the demise of the
Weberian concept of bureaucracy. Alvin Toffler observes that it is not surprising to
find that whenever organizations are caught up into the stream of technological or
social change, the decline of bureaucratic forms is most pronounced [45].
Besides this, the problems of bureaucracy are somewhat more complex in
developing countries like ours, where bureaucracy has to perform all the major
administrative functions. At the same time, the participation of the civil society actors
into the process of public service delivery have posed may organizational challenges.
These organizational challenges seem very difficult to be assessed and coped with.
Another factor that is internally weakening the bureaucratic structure is the
negative impact of the process of liberalization and globalization. As a result of the
two, bureaucrats these days, are either demanding very high emoluments or joining
the multinational Corporations [46].
Despite everything, Ali Farazmund is of the view that bureaucracy has been
tested for millennia – it has persisted with durability, dependability and stability.
Nothing seems to have replaced bureaucracy. It persists because it is instrumental to
maintenance of public governance and administration.
But, with the changing times, bureaucracy also needs to adapt and respond to
the dynamics of the world, with a sound leadership. Bureaucracy must move “beyond
Weber” and adapt to changes and transformations that challenge the administrative
system [47]. It needs to become dynamic.
25
Introduction
Although efforts have been made to restructure the role of bureaucracy, to
reform the deformity and to remove the dysfunctionality, but it is a slow process. For
a way out, we need to resort to e-governance. The governments need to be “reinvented”, so that it represents a paradigm shift from a traditional model of public
administration to the “New Public Management (NPM)”. This manifests a change in
the role of government and bureaucracy in society and the relationship between
government and citizenry.
At the same time, the very concepts of structure and processes of bureaucracy
are undergoing significant changes under the impact of information technology. This
has led to effective public scrutiny of administrative affairs, lessening of corruption
and red tapism, and better and cheaper coordination between the levels of
bureaucracy.
An important strategy that would enhance the reinvention of the government is
the “recycling of the bureaucrats”, through various training programmes
[48].
Thus,
restructuring of bureaucracy could be made possible by inculcation of the requisite
administrative skills into the bureaucrats, helping their re-orientation into the system.
3.8.
Presence of Conflict in Organizations
Conflict to a certain extent is essential in every organization for dynamism,
efficiency and creativity. Conflict in organizations arises mainly due to varied
opinions, perceptions and ways of functioning. Bureaucracy may have to work amidst
multiple and complex conflicts. Some bureaucrats actively cope with these conflicts –
finding creative ways around the system. While others deal with these conflicts
passively - choosing to avoid the conflict situations. A clear assessment of the extent
of conflict needed in an organization, needs to be done.
Most essentially conflicts occur between the political and bureaucratic elites.
According to some analysts, there needs to be coherence and consensus between the
two, for the government to function. But it seems that the contemporary governments
show a lot of incoherence between the two, which keeps on increasing day by day.
If one wants to make a difference, one has to move towards progressive
values. But the people need to be motivated enough to do this. Actually, the whole
26
Introduction
process of shifting towards progressive values instead of regressive values, begins
with a passion for change driven by something in the current conditions that seems
unacceptable[49]. Each person’s experiences, professional role and interpretations may
lead him or her to identify contradictions between what is and what should be. A good
administrator is always ready to meet the conflicts and the challenges.
Conflicts are always threatening because they lead to change. But this conflict
needs to be resolved successfully, so that positive and progressive changes take place.
Politics is a conflict resolution process, according to some analysts. Actually politics
decides who gets what, when and how. In this conflict resolution process, power
affects the outcome. Potential power resources can be brought to bear to affect the
policy outcomes and conflict outcomes. Normally public bureaucracies tend to
maximise their security and minimize their dislocation through conflicts. To safe
guard their security, they can resort to altering the organization’s goals even.
3.9.
Following Means or Ends in Bureaucratic Procedures
Every system or organization is either more inclined towards the means to be
followed or the goals to be achieved. The bureaucracy is oriented towards means or
rules rather than the objectives or ends. Even in a study carried out by S.K. Goyal, it
was found that the junior bureaucracy was more oriented towards the means than the
senior bureaucracy, due to varied reasons. But in the normal course of action,
bureaucratic bent towards rule sanctification or strict following of the means and goal
displacement in the various operations is more rampantly observed.
Bureaucratic evil comes to surface, when it becomes dysfunctional.
Bureaucracy becomes dysfunctional when its main goals, ends, objectives and
functions of serving broad based public interests are replaced by hidden and behind
the rules procedures. Governments should seek ways, through certain changes, to
deliver policies and programmes by economical, efficient, effective and accountable
processes. Effective service delivery should be the main concern of the bureaucracies
and they should try to carve out the policy and directions for the same.
Actually, the citizen is being choked by merciless “processes”. The
administrative machinery needs to function more responsibly. But, when bureaucracy
acts too responsibly and consciously accepts the primacy of public opinion, it is prone
27
Introduction
to attach correspondingly greater value to precedent and procedure as anchors in the
winds of pressure
[50].
On the contrary, when he is assured of his resources like
knowledge and experience, and his superior position, he feels freer and tries to take
initiatives towards faster achievement of objectives and goals.
To improve the orientations towards objectives/ends, rather than means, public
bureaucracies need to become more efficient, through various changes. But it seems
too difficult to bring about the much talked about efficiency in bureaucracies because
public bureaucracies were basically never constructed or designed for that kind of
efficiency in the first place. Bureaucracies started off with an organizational design,
which would enable them to safeguard the administrative process and also be
constrained and controlled by it
[51]
.
Now in the modern times, public sector
organizations need to adapt to new types of tasks, which are being put upon them. The
need of the hour are the customer-driven processes of public service design and
delivery. These processes may appear appealing in many ways, but they have internal
organizational impacts, which would be difficult to assess.
It needs to be widely recognized that for good performance, the engines of
administration must be lubricated with the oil of discretion. Besides this concern with
procedure to an extent, a bureaucrat should exert himself to make sure that each
proposal moves towards its objectives and goal. He needs to assure himself of the
means – and – ends relationships of administrative purposes, so that efficiency and
benefits are achieved. At the same time, he religiously sticks to the prescribed means
in order to reduce the risk of abuses. But these complicated and complex procedures
need to be replaced with more dynamic, result- oriented methods which facilitate the
public. Without a real commitment, all the procedures are useless. So, to achieve the
ends, we need actual commitment of a flexible and intelligent bureaucracy.
Eventually, due to such commitments, procedures may start becoming redundant.
Institutions and procedures are certainly important but cannot substitute for the
determination and abilities of the inhabitants of the structures of government [52].
New ways of attaining efficiency need to be adopted, while at the same time,
not defying the means or procedures. There is a need to resort to management by
“outcomes”, through a long term planning process which makes the government
accountable for these specific outcomes. The progress towards these outcomes needs
28
Introduction
to be reported, monitored and evaluated. Even technological evolutions can help a lot
in this direction. We seem to be moving towards a “push-button world”, where the
control room has been taken over by gigantic engines and the humans are spared all
the mental and physical labour.
At the same time, Simon has pointed out, “Ends themselves, however, are
often merely instrumental to more final objectives”. These intermediate levels become
ends with reference to levels below, but means with reference to levels above. In this
chain of hierarchical structure, various subunits contribute their limited goals as
means towards the ultimate goal of the total organization [53]. This helps in bringing
order to the complex process of achieving goals.
3.10.
Performance Management in Bureaucracy
Performance management process is the part of the holistic approach, where
every body’s performance needs to be managed and appraised. Performance
Management is strategic in the sense that it is concerned with the broader issues
facing the organization, if it is to function effectively in its environment, and with the
general direction in which it intends to go to achieve longer-term goals.
Performance management is concerned with performance improvement and
subsequently with effective development. The present day performance management
approach
rejects
the
bureaucratic
model
and
instead
believes
in
direct
communications. It is important that instead of rating the individual contributions, the
implications of teams and team level achievements are assessed in the organizations,
we need to move to something more flexible and less formal. The performance review
should not simply be a piece of paper, but a full-fledged conversation between the
individual /team and the boss [54]. The Organization actually needs to exhibit a strong
performance culture.
Once we try to concretize the performance of the Indian Bureaucracy, we
realize that it is less than 50% and requires a lot of improvements in all the fields.
Though, the bureaucratic system is the only stable system in our society, it lacks
effective leadership. At the same time, state governments are financially very weak
and unstable. The quality of service that bureaucracy provides is largely lacking and
ineffective. Delay is the norm of the bureaucratic service delivery. Technological
29
Introduction
innovations are almost non-existent in our Governments, due to inherent resistance,
incompetence and financial bottle necks. Keeping all the above facts in view,
bureaucratic performance duly gets a setback. To top it all, our recruitment and
promotion systems in bureaucracy are obsolete and dysfunctional. Entry into the
bureaucracy by chance and promotion by fixed seniority, eventually lead to underrated performance and goal achievements in the government.
At the same time, the patterns of the assessment reports vary in nature and
extent in different settings. There is a need to evolve a common, concrete method for
all officers, which could ensure a more comprehensive and useful report over a wide
range of qualities and abilities, which are required in different posts [55]. The methods
of performance assessment need to be technically sound, valid and universally
applicable.
For better performance management, every organization needs a good
leadership. A good leader or a good administrator is an initiator in asking new
questions about performance and about seeking new ways to appraise what is going
on. While one of the duties of an administrator is to enforce conformity with
established routines, in the interest of systematic and synchronized action, he also has
a special responsibility for the improvement of work ways [56].
In one of his perspectives, Ali Farazmund views bureaucratic politics in its
distinct administrative service delivery performance of large scale achievements
through its massive professionalized capacities. The judgement of this perspective is
based on criteria of mass performance management – building and managing public
works; mobilizing forces; coordinating and competing etc. Today, the administrative
function and performance of bureaucracy must also be judged in its quality of
efficiency, effectiveness, economy and timeliness, as well as in its service delivery
and adaptive and advancing strategies for security and development.
Government personnel should be motivated enough to perform well. The
patterns of political culture and general cultural values have an influence on the
operation of the administrative system – outputs as well as the internal management.
It has been seen that culture has a significant impact on the behaviour of public
administration [57].
30
Introduction
Organizations need to make a transition from a bureaucratic, stove piped way
of functioning to a performance management system with a focus on achieving
results. That is the spirit and intent of the 1993 Government Performance and Results
Act (GPRA).It focuses on the outcomes. It promises to exchange flexibility for
accountability. According to it, all organizations have to submit annual performance
plans that include measurable goals, a plan for meeting those goals, and the indicators
that will be used to measure progress towards them. The annual performance report
compares the actual performance with goals. Some organizations use performance
budgeting, a method that identifies the costs of achieving different levels of
performance[58].
The transition in Organizations is a paradigm shift to provide a way to move
from the static, non productive state to one of continuous improvement and
performance orientation with an eye on results. GPRA would include:
i.
Starting wherever you are –trying to have some way to quantify
performance, which would be linked to broader strategic goals.
ii.
Importance of senior management commitment- leadership must drive the
change.
iii.
Put it into practice – management principles shall enable performance
planning, budgeting, assessment and continuous quality improvement.
iv.
Linkage- a well synchronized system that provides linkage of all the parts
that have an impact on performance.
v.
Integration – identification, meshing and mapping of the processes, so that
these work together and complement one another.
vi.
Simplicity - simple and easily understood by all; system stays basic,
continuously prioritizes for importance, and keeps performance measures
simple and focused on results.
vii.
Satisfaction of the customer - should understand and reflect their
satisfaction.
viii.
Training for performance - an on-going process to improve the knowledge
and skill levels with regularly scheduled performance reviews and self –
assessment processes.
ix.
Information management system - imported data should go to the right
place; act as a synthesizer and transform the collected data into
information and knowledge through the processes of assimilation and
analysis[59].
People who toil in our bureaucracy frequently work hard at not losing, at the
mundane tasks as well as more significant ones. Our system offers little forgiveness
31
Introduction
for errors and few rewards for innovations. Therefore, bureaucrats try to play safe and
avoid losing. This assumption creates a self fulfilling prophecy – the less you try to
change, the less likely you will be punished or disappointed. But it also reduces
tremendously the chances of winning because it is extra ordinarily difficult to be
successful at not losing. It also diminishes human potential and energy; lowers
creativity and drains the human spirit. So, before it is too late, we need to re-engineer
our governments. To move towards a seamless future, we need to challenge the old
assumptions [60].
3.11.
Technocracy versus Bureaucracy
Specifically technocracy would mean governance by technical experts in
various fields of governmental decision making. A technocrat is a member of a
powerful technical elite. Nearly every modern government is a flavour of bureaucracy
or technocracy. The commonality between the two is that both think that they know
better and can do better than the public. But when it comes to bureaucracy versus
technocracy, the ideal situation demands that only a technical person should be
allowed to head the sector which is highly technical in nature. The Bureaucrats always
fight on the grounds that the actual managerial skills lay with them.
Whenever the foundations of bureaucratic power have been studied, it has
been found that one of the main power bases inherent in the nature of bureaucracy is
the strategic - organizational resources. These strategic organizational resources are
the expertise, knowledge and specialization. Professionalization seems to be gaining
importance day by day. Professionals gain additional authority by virtue of their
professional credentials. On the other hand, simple bureaucratic expertise is
frequently founded upon repetitive experience in making mundane decisions [61].
Barnard has said, “The higher the positions in the line of authority, the more
general the abilities required”. Thus, bureaucracy requires non- specialized functions.
The usual tendency for a bureaucrat will be to be a prisoner of his post
preoccupations. His “x” years of experience, may be only one year of experience
repeated “x” number of times.
There is an inseparability of the technical core from the boundary – spanning
functions, in public administration. Pervasive hierarchy also limits the ability of
32
Introduction
organizations to separate core- technical from boundary – spanning activities because
the elements of both, general bureaucracy as well as technocracy, are present at every
level, except for the lowest [62].
With the passage of time, the “expertise” component of policy making has
increased and thus has increased the number of experts employed by bureaucracy.
They are employed for the specific specialist skills that they possess. This has also
raised the issue of the need for control over expertise. It is actually the complexity of
the tasks of the modern governments and complexity of their structure that give rise to
the problems of this kind [63]. In any case, the power of decision – making always lies
with the non-technical people in the administration. Even the rules and regulations are
framed by the non- technical people. Due to all this, the technical people find it very
difficult to deal with their high aspirations.
In any case, the trend is moving towards increasing professionalism, resulting
in massive changes in administration. This process of professionalization has also
brought in new structures and institutional qualities in bureaucracies. The most
important are the professionalization of bureaucracy, and the bureaucrats assuming
the character of the professionals. This coincidence of professionalization with
bureaucratization was also identified by Weber. This overlap is becoming quite
obvious in the increase in specialized activities and specialized functionaries in
bureaucracies [64].
3.12.
Recruitment and Promotion into Bureaucracy
Recruitment is the system of getting into the bureaucracy through an official
and legal appointment. Promotions signify the elevations achieved up the bureaucratic
ladder, based on seniority or performance. In 1947, a combined examination was
introduced for recruitment to the Indian Administrative Service, Indian Police Service
and Non-technical Central Services. Between the years 1947 – 1950, a combined
competitive examination was held once a year. After independence, All India Services
were established. At the same time, Indian Foreign Service (IFS) was established for
the requirement of diplomatic personnel. The Service Commission was re-designated
as Union Public Service Commission in 1950, when the constitution came into force.
33
Introduction
In public bureaucracy, recruitment is based on fixed procedures and rules.
Examinations for these services are held by the Union Public Service Commission. At
the state level, recruitment into State Administrative and other services is done by the
State Public Service Commission. Although passing the examinations is the primary
route to enter the administrative services, the alternative route is by the promotions
into the services. Promotions are based partly on the basis of merit and partly on
merit-cum-seniority criterion. The Departmental Promotions Committee headed by
the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, makes the recommendation on the
basis of the record of the service of the employee. In the case of promotion to Indian
Services, the committee is headed by the Chairman of the Union Public Service
Commission [65].
Lately, the departments are being expanded beyond limits, whether required or
not. Many posts get created because someone, somewhere wants a promotion and is
not prepared to await his turn. There are periodic circulars from the departments of
personnel, administrative reforms and finance, that departments should take a fresh
look at their staff strength, indulge in zero based budgeting and make a cut of 10% or
20% in their overall strength. But to no avail [66].
The policies of adhocism led to the vices of favouritism and corruption in the
recruitment systems. The present recruitment policy needs to be streamlined, to bring
in positive changes. Promotions should also be based upon probationary periods and
assessments
[67].
This would ensure a foolproof system of up gradation of the
personnel.
Basically a rational and secular recruitment system had crystallized during the
British period. Entrance and recruitment to bureaucracy was open and based on
educational qualifications, stiff tests, competitive examinations and interviews.
Initially the Indian Civil Services constituted elite from the best families of England.
Its Indianisation started after Lee Commission, 1924. The triple principles of
recruitment of young men with merit, through open competitive examinations, of
scholastic nature were applied and highly supported. Entrance to bureaucracy was
theoretically open and secular in nature. But, in actual practice, only the well –to-do
sections, who could afford expensive education, could get entry into it [68].
34
Introduction
Appointment into the services at the base grade and steady progression
through the hierarchy, even promotion by seniority, should actually inculcate loyalty
to the public service and reduce office politics. There should be no scope for the
persistent and un-ambitious public servants to eventually become departmental heads
and the impatient and talented to leave the services. Promotions based on seniority
really reward the time servers and punish the able. This faulty system is an
acknowledgement that either performance cannot be measured or everyone shows
equal performance in administrative tasks. This system almost guarantees mediocrity.
It began to be perceived that the personnel system itself did not attract the
right people to government service or promote the most able. The rigidity of the
administrative structure makes it difficult to hire the right people, as the selection
procedures are cumbersome and usually beyond the control of the head of the
organization. It is similarly difficult to provide appropriate reward structures or to
remove people who are not performing (Bezeman and Straussman, 1990).
3.13.
Post- retirement Careers of Bureaucrats
Senior bureaucrats, retiring from government services with decades of
administrative experience are becoming the most sought after hands in private
business groups. Several bureaucrats have taken assignments with private business
groups which are all set to tap their vast administrative, crisis management and fire
fighting potentials. While some of the bureaucrats function as advisors to the business
groups, without being on their pay rolls, some have joined as full-time employees.
The retired bureaucrats also want to keep themselves active and working.
Besides the retired personnel, some senior officials have left government services in
the midst of their career to join private organizations for better pay and service
conditions. Senior bureaucrats, joining the politics ahead of elections is an old trend.
These bureaucrats behave like hereditary rulers during their service periods, as is
suffered by the common citizens in their day to day experience. The politicalbureaucratic nexus to rob the democracy of its sheen and particularly to deny the
citizens their dues has seeped deeper. Some of the bureaucrats work under the
patronage of certain political parties. These party affiliations raise serious questions
35
Introduction
over these officers’ ability to remain non- partisan while working in different
positions in the administrative setup.
Directorate of Personnel and Trainings is seeking change in the norms for post
retirement jobs of the bureaucrats. Since long, it has been insisted that there needs to
be a cooling off period after the retirement, before a bureaucrat is ready to take up a
post retirement job. Presently this cooling off period has been fixed for one year. But
soon, the senior bureaucrats may have to wait for a mandatory cooling off period of
two years, before they can take up plum post-retirement jobs in the private sector.
Even the All India Service Rules bar a pensioner from accepting any commercial
employment before the expiry of one year from the date of retirement, except with the
prior sanction from the centre. But several senior bureaucrats do not want to wait even
for one year for the cooling off purpose.
If a bureaucrat properly plans out his retirement, with honest intentions and
sincerity backing his planning , he shall not only prove to be an asset and an important
and potential human resource for the society, even after retirement, but also be able to
enhance his own financial and social security.
3.14.
Dynamism and Decision making in Bureaucracy
Taking decisions and formulating policies are the most vital functions of
bureaucracy. The quality and the feasibility of the decisions enhances if dynamism
exists in the organizations. Dynamism is a phenomenon where everything works
energetically and forcefully. Decision making and choice lie at the heart of much of
the discussion of human behaviour. Individuals express their own values and
preferences through various processes; individuals relate to the process and then
consensus is achieved, if at all. It is imperative that rationality forms the basis of
decision – making. A rational choice or decision is one which is deliberate and
consistent, and it is also one in which the individual chooses so as to maximise his
utility [69].
Goals are an integral part of any theory of decision – making or problem
solving. In every model, it is assumed that the decision –maker is aiming at something
and that his behaviour is purposeful. Individual decision – making eventually leads to
collective decision making. Actually, individuals make decisions and organizations do
36
Introduction
not, and therefore, individuals frequently as members of large or small groups make
decisions collectively. But, once the collective decision-making is made, it affects all
members of the collectivise, who are, therefore, bound to it. In organizations, those
who have the power over the allocated resources or have the power to distribute the
resources, also have the rights to make decisions.
Policy making is decision making. Although, it is a common conviction that
political factors are the key factors on which decisions hinge, there are several social
science techniques that have proven useful in clarifying issues and raising the level of
policy debate. The decision making tools have been refined in many of the
government organizations, bearing resemblance to the private sector. The bottom line
of decision – making in the public sector is the budget formulation [70].
When different aspects/components of decision-making process come
together, in a particular manner, learning can occur. There are many ways in which
social
science
research
can
contribute
to
governmental
decision-making.
Governmental decision-making is multi-dimensional and multi-faceted. Public sector
decision –making is constantly evolving, as it is a process of working through cycles
of change in the life of a policy or program. It is thus, a process with its own order
and logic; its own time frames and pressures.
Weiss has summarized the notion of decision –making “as an event” (1982).
Decision –making and organizational learning are interrelated phenomena.
Organizational learning occurs when the information necessary to enhance the
decision-making capability and certainty of the key actors is both made available and
subsequently utilized. Policy making is also, thus an event and organizational learning
takes place when the decisions are made based on the use of new information.
According to Weiss (1982), a group of authorized decision makers assemble at
particular times and places, review a problem (or opportunity), consider a number of
alternative courses of action with more or less explicit calculation of the advantages
and disadvantages of each option, weigh the alternatives against their goals or
preferences and then select an alternative that seems well suited to achieving their
purposes. The result is a decision [71].
37
Introduction
Decisions are based upon the information received and acted upon.
Government organizations appear more receptive to information produced internally
than that which comes from external sources. Also, there appears to be a positive
correlation between the credibility of the sources and the acceptance of the
information.
To an important extent, administration attains its ends by the making of
decisions. Administrative systems are the spheres of decision –making, which operate
differently depending on various controlling factors. The modern bureaucracy in the
organization of its technical competence, possesses a tested methodology of decisionmaking. Every decision has two parameters- the decision made in meticulous
conformance with the applicable procedure and the decision being “right”. These are
two different things. Decision – making in the administrative system is most likely to
turn out an acceptable end product when the bureaucracy is a responsible partner of
the political leadership [72]. The more spontaneously an organization makes decisions,
the more dynamic it is supposed to be. But the decisions should ultimately prove to be
the “right” decisions and “rightly made” decisions. Dynamic bureaucrats are always
able decision –makers.
3.15.
Social Ethics in Bureaucracy
Bureaucracy, being embedded in the human society itself, needs to adhere to a
set of social ethics prescribed for the common masses. There exists a code of ethics in
every service. This code of ethics is a self imposed compilation of restrictive
conditions drawn up by the representatives of the profession or service. Apart from
the strict observance of the discipline as enjoined by the government orders and
government servants Conduct Rules, the Government has a right to expect that every
government servant must observe certain standards of decency and morality in his
private life also. The government has, therefore, in exercise of their powers, conferred
on them various enactments, framed rules to regulate the conduct of their employee.
Generally speaking, public servants have to be obedient, faithful, careful, honest,
punctual, well behaved and reasonably competent to discharge their duties. A public
office is a public trust. Every officer assumes a special duty to be fair and impartial in
his dealings with the public and must completely subordinate his self interest to public
service.
38
Introduction
But unfortunately, there is a money - power nexus and political leadership –
power nexus in bureaucracy, these days. This has happened because the fear of the
un-written code of conduct or of the adverse reaction of the society itself is no more a
potential deterrent [73].
The bureaucracy has more or less failed the people as public servants and has
also failed their political counterparts as straight forward advisors on policy
formulation. Civil services these days, not only lacks conviction, it allows wrong
things to multiply and perpetuate, without raising any conscientious objections and
initiating corrective action. The bureaucrats are also developing the masterly art of
saving one’s own skin, besides other things. Bureaucrats also show their utter
dependence on political executives for their performance, which has aggravated the
mess. The value base of the civil service has become quite hollow. Even preaching
flops because of the chasm between precept and practice in our country, which has
further degenerated our value systems. Professionalism and innovativeness is lacking
in bureaucracy in the present times, hastening its downward roll [74].
In India, the bureaucracy adapts itself to the newly formed governments. As
such, it becomes the moral responsibility of each bureaucrat not to compromise to his
discharge of duties and what is expected of him, no matter whichever political party
comes to power. A bureaucrat needs to balance his professional ethics and maintain a
cordial relationship with politicians. There are moral and ethical implications in the
conduct of public affairs, for the reasonable public servants. A reasonable public
servant in a policy making position has a special moral obligation to ensure that
official decisions or customs, on their own or in interaction, would not serve as a
moving force in the deprivation of citizens’ civil rights [75]. Even the purpose of the
constitutional rights that the public servants enjoy, is to protect the rights of others, as
well as to defend their own.
Accountability in bureaucracy is presented as an amalgam of ministerial
responsibility, legal responsibility and social responsibility. Bureaucrats are being
called upon to respond effectively to the demands of all three of these duties. While
performing these duties, the concept and practice of the public sector ethics becomes
very crucial. The importance of ethics in government needs to be stressed very much,
39
Introduction
while at the same time, acquiring the coping skills for the difficulties that the
governments face in putting the codes of ethics into practice [76].
The training responsibility of a civil servant in all the ethical skills and
knowledge lies with the civil servant himself. He has to strengthen himself and
empower himself with such energy of the inner self that he can rise above all
adversities and crises of conscience and be of great ability and help to the public and
the society.
4. Theoretical Perspectives:
A theory is a set of ideas which provides an explanation for something. A
sociological theory is a set of ideas which provides an explanation for human society.
Every research needs to be based on a certain theoretical framework, as it provides a
collection of assumptions, concepts and forms of explanation for the study. Giving a
definite theoretical orientation to a study enhances its credibility and saves it from being
vague, hazy, imprecise or illogical.
Bureaucracy is an inherent part of almost every society in the contemporary
world. The bureaucratic structure is a vital part of today’s existence. Therefore, a wide
range of studies and the subsequent theories are associated with the research on
bureaucracy. All the relevant thoughts and theories concerning bureaucracy are as
follows :
4.1. Functionalism and Bureaucracy
Functionalism views society as a system that is a set of interconnected parts,
which together form a whole. The basic unit of analysis is society and its various parts
are understood primarily in terms of their relationship to the whole. Thus social
institutions such as the family and religion are analyzed as a part of the social system
rather than as isolated units. In particular, they are understood with reference to the
contribution they make to the system as a whole. The early functionalists often drew an
analogy between society and an organism such as the human body. An understanding of
any part of society requires an analysis of its relationship to other parts and most
importantly, of contribution to the maintenance of society. They argued that just as an
organism has certain basic needs which must be satisfied if it is to survive, so society
40
Introduction
has basic needs which must be met if it is to continue to exist. These basic needs or
necessary conditions of existence are sometimes known as functional prerequisites of
society.
The structural functionalists picture society evolving from simple, huntergatherer and traditional to complex, industrial and modern societies with a high
degree of division of labour. In other words, societies undergo structural
differentiation and new institutions appear to perform vital functions over time.
4.1.1. Weberian Model of Bureaucracy
Max Weber, a German Social Scientist developed the concept of bureaucracy
(1947). His writings aroused the interest of many scholars and social scientists. Weber
gave the term a scientific and systematized connotation, making it a value-free
concept. He delineated the ideal-typical characteristics of bureaucracy based on
logical analysis of comparative and historical data. Weber’s model is considered to be
an ‘ideal type’ or ‘classical model’.
Weber strongly believed that no other organisation or structure could replace
the bureaucratic structure in its true form. He believed that the technical superiority of
bureaucracy as an institution over other institutions was primarily responsible for its
ever increasing advancement.
Weber described the ideal type bureaucracy in positive terms, considering it to
be a more rational and efficient form of organization than the alternatives that
preceded it, which he characterized as charismatic domination and traditional
domination. According to his terminology, bureaucracy is part of legal domination.
However, he also emphasized that bureaucracy becomes inefficient when a decision
must be adapted to an individual case.
According to Weber, the attributes of modern bureaucracy
include
its
impersonality, concentration of the means of administration, a leveling effect on
social and economic differences and implementation of a system of authority that is
practically indestructible.
41
Introduction
Max Weber was one of the earlier writers to provide systematic treatment of
bureaucracy. The components of his bureaucratic model were:
i.
Hierarchy of authority: the locus of decision making is prestructured with decisions of varying types being made at different
levels of the organization. It is assumed that decision making ability
and power are directly related to hierarchical position.
ii.
Division of labour: work tasks are subdivided into functional
specializations.
iii.
Presence of rule:
the degree to which the behaviour
organizational members is subject to organizational control.
iv.
Procedural Specification: the extent to which organizational
members must follow organizationally defined techniques in dealing
with the variety of situations they face.
v.
Impersonality: describes the extent to which organizational members
and outsiders are treated without regard to individual qualities (all
people are treated the same way without consideration of individual
differences).
vi.
Technical competence:
the selection of personnel and promotion
is based upon organizationally defined universal standards[77].
of
These elements of Weber's theory of bureaucracy formed the basis of an early
analysis of organizations and were intended to maximize rational decision making.
The bureaucratic administrative staff in the purest type is appointed and functions
according to the following criteria :
i.
The officials are personally free, and observe impersonal official duties.
ii.
They are organized in a clearly defined hierarchy of offices.
iii.
Each office has a clearly defined sphere of competence in the legal
sense.
iv.
The office is filed by a free contractual relationship.
v.
Officials are not elected but appointed on the basis of technical
qualifications. Competence is tested by competitive examination or
guaranteed by diplomas.
vi.
Officials get salaries graded according to rank.
vii.
The office is treated as the primary occupation of the incumbent.
viii.
There is a system of promotion according to seniority or merit or both. It
constitutes a career.
42
Introduction
ix.
The official does not own the means of administration.
x.
He is subject to strict and systematic discipline and control in the
conduct of the office[78].
Weber said that bureaucracy resolves some of the shortcomings of the
traditional system. Weber's view of bureaucracy was a system of power where leaders
exercise control over others -- a system based on discipline.
Weber stressed that the rational-legal form was the most stable of systems for
both superiors and subordinates -- it's more reliable and clear, yet allows the
subordinate more independence and discretion. Subordinates ideally can challenge the
decisions of their leaders by referring to the stated rules -- charisma becomes less
important. As a result, bureaucratic systems can handle more complex operations than
traditional systems [79].
Weber argued that bureaucracy is the most technically superior way of
organising work. It is characterised by the following :
1. Hierarchy of authority
2. Clear division of labour and task specialization
3. Rule-bound behaviour
4. Records kept in the form of written documents
5. Impersonal relations between bureaucrats and clients
6. Recruitment carried out on the basis of qualifications
7. Long-term employment
8. Promotion on the basis of seniority and merit
9. Staff paid fixed salaries
10. Separation of private and official income[80]
Max Weber defined "power" as the ability to get things done your way in spite
of resistance from others. Weber also discussed the concept of "authority" (power
which is regarded as being proper, appropriate, legitimate etc. by subordinates or by
others).
According to Weber, there are three kinds of authority, i.e., traditional
authority, charismatic authority and legal-rational authority. Traditional authority
refers to authority based on customs and traditions. Charismatic authority refers to
authority which arises because a person is perceived as being one who possesses
43
Introduction
extraordinary/special qualities by one's followers. Legal-rational authority arises from
the position one holds in a bureaucracy or organization. High government officials
and top managers in private companies exert legal-rationality because of the positions
they hold within the organization. It should be pointed out that these three kinds of
authority can overlap [81].
Unlike Marx, Weber's view is that power does not arise from control of
economic resources alone. Groups which do not possess much wealth can also be
powerful. Weber's view of power is conflictual and zero sum, i.e., the exercise of
power often benefits one group at the expense of another group.
According to Max Weber, the growth of bureaucracies is inevitable because
bureaucracy is the most technically superior form of organization and it is part of the
trend of increasing formal rationality in modern societies. Modern societies
increasingly emphasize efficiency and productivity and a focus on formal rationality
(goal-oriented, calculative behaviour) is necessary to achieve these ends. However,
Weber was worried that too much emphasis on formal rationality at the expense of
substantive rationality could be dehumanizing and threaten individual freedom.
4.1.2. Critique of the Weberian Model of Bureaucracy:
Weber’s analysis of bureaucracy was a functional one as he was mainly
concerned with official regulations and their significance in relation to efficiency. He
had postulated the characteristics of bureaucracy in a way that would contribute
towards the highest effective goal attainment. But in doing so, he had neglected the
operational aspects of these characteristics. Thus, in the course of functioning, new
elements arose in the internal structure of bureaucracy, which inhibited the subsequent
operations and thus the rational goal achievement [82].
One critique was Weber's claim that bureaucratic organizations were based on
rational-legal authority. Parsons (1947) and Gouldner (1954) note that Weber said
authority rests both in the "legal incumbency of office" and on "technical
competence". This works if superiors have more knowledge and skill, but often this is
not the case. More often bureaucratic authority rests on the seniority purely and has
little to do with any kind of competence.
44
Introduction
Weber also doesn't distinguish between definitions and propositions in his
model. His list of distinguishing characteristics are linked between each other. There
is tremendous interdependence between the Weberian characteristics and therefore,
they tend to lose their independent significance.
More recent theorists think that earlier theorists misread Weber and distorted
his views. Weber was defining a formal rationality that was not necessarily optimal
for efficiency. He realized that formalization could degenerate into formalism, and
that bureaucratic forms concentrated power at the top and could cause an "iron cage"
to imprison the low-level worker in obscurity and monotonous detail
[83].
The lower
level workers are therefore, bound by the steadfast rules and regulations, on the one
hand and by the authority of the seniors, on the other hand. This scenario perpetually
affects their performance adversely.
Merton also argues that the rule-bound behaviour can have undesirable
consequences. Rules, instead of being the means to an end, as they were originally
meant to be, could ultimately become ends in themselves, resulting in goal
displacement
[84].
The public service organizations therefore, fail in delivering the
goods and end up being tagged as inefficient and ineffective.
Selznick identifies the dysfunctional consequences of bureaucracy‫ ۔‬Most of
the dysfunctions with regard to treatment of procedures and rules lead to delay, redtapism, unresponsiveness, self-centeredness, corruption, avoidance of personal
responsibility and quest for power [85]. This transition in the bureaucracy for the worse
has resulted in the lack of public confidence and trust in the machinery of
administration. This is further manifested through disgust and cynicism in the
institution of bureaucracy.
Parsons draws attention to the possible conflict which might arise between a
bureaucrat’s authority derived from his position in the hierarchy, and that derived
from technical expertise. If these do not match and are nonexistent in the same person
it gives rise to an internal conflict between the boss and the subordinates
[86].
These
implications are rampantly observed in the organizations and have subsequently
resulted in the breakdown of the team spirit and coordination down the levels of
hierarchy.
45
Introduction
Weber’s analysis is static and thus his rational administration cannot be made
applicable in environments characterized by flux, change and uncertainty, according
to Blau
[87].
There is lesser scope for dynamism in Weber’s concept of bureaucracy,
which could have otherwise provided a cushioning effect in times of crisis and
instability.
Weber has overemphasized the formal aspect of bureaucracy, which results in
the neglect of the importance of the informal organisations
[88].
But formal and
informal organisations are complementary to one another. Both need to coexist with
certain consequences on the functioning of bureaucracy. Some social scientists in the
recent times have even predicted the demise of Weberian concept of bureaucracy.
According to Alvin Toffler, whenever organisations are caught up in the stream of
technological or social change, wherever research or development is important,
whenever men must cope with first-time problems, the decline of bureaucratic forms
is most pronounced [89].
The problems of bureaucracy are complex in the developing nations rather
than in the developed nations. Weber’s concept of bureaucracy, although idealistic,
seems to get irrelevant with each passing day, in the present fast moving world. Too
much formalism has become unacceptable. A system is emerging where means should
merely be the tools for achieving the ends and nothing more. Goal orientation is very
important for better administrative and delivery mechanisms, in the present times. It is
becoming very important to get things done, rather than just justifying the means.
Weber also advocates rational-legal authority, while as the concept of charismatic
authority is gaining ground these days. People with emotional intelligence are
successful and able leaders, and are therefore, able to sustain their authority more
successfully over a longer period of time.
4.1.3. Emile Durkheim
Much of Durkheim's work is concerned with functional analysis, with seeking
to understand the functions of social facts. He assumes that society has certain
functional prerequisites, the most important of which is the need for ‘social order'.
Durkheim begins with the question of how a collection of individuals can be integrated
to form an ordered society.
46
Introduction
Durkheim argued that when society changes rapidly from simple to complex
(and from a society held together by mechanical solidarity to one held together by
organic solidarity), a breakdown in the value system may occur. He called this
condition of breakdown "anomie" (normlessness). Durkheim believed that it is
essential to recreate a moral consensus to prevent social problems arising from
anomie. The school system and the legal system can be used to recreate a moral
consensus. Thus, Durkheim and his followers would see the growth of bureaucracies
such as schools and the courts as responses to social problems arising from anomie[90].
Durkheim seems to talk of bureaucracies as consequences to the anomie in the
society, while as history proves that bureaucracies existed at the very onset of the social
existence. Anomie, in fact, could occur as the consequence of the clash of various
bureaucracies in the system.
4.1.4. Talcott Parsons
Parsons views society as a system. He argues that any social system has four
basic functional prerequisites - adaptation, goal attainment, integration and pattern
maintenance. These can be seen as problems which society must solve if it is to survive.
The function of any part of the social system is understood as its contribution to
meeting the functional prerequisites. Solutions to the four survival problems must be
institutionalized if society is to continue in existence. In other words, solutions must be
organized in the form of ordered, stable social institutions which persist through time.
Parsons emphasized social stratification system with highly specialized division of
labour. According to him, it inevitably leads to inequality in terms of power and
prestige [91].
Parsons associates social status in the society directly with power, while
ignoring all other desirables for the same. Besides, he defines social inequality as
inevitable for the social existence, which is quite irrelevant in the present scenario.
Team work is given more impetus for effective cooperation and results, in the
contemporary times, rather than exercise of power due to unequal status in the society.
47
Introduction
4.2. Marxism /Conflict Theories and Bureaucracy
Marxists see the growth of bureaucracies in capitalist societies differently.
Marxists argue that bureaucratic organisations grow because they help to reproduce
the capitalist system and help the capitalists to remain in control of the system. Marx
regards man as both the producer and the product of society. Man makes society and
himself by his own actions. History is, therefore, the process of man's self-creation. Yet
man is also a product of society. He is shaped by the social relationships and systems of
thought which he creates. An understanding of society, therefore, involves an historical
perspective which examines the process whereby man both produces and is produced
by social reality. A society forms a totality and can only be understood as such. The
various parts of society are interconnected and influence each other. Thus economic,
political, legal and religious institutions can only be understood in terms of their mutual
effect. Economic factors, however, exert the primary influence and largely shape other
aspects of society. The history of human society is a process of tension and conflict.
Social change is not a smooth, orderly progression which gradually unfolds in
harmonious evolution. Instead it proceeds from contradictions built into society which
are a source of tension and ultimately the source of open conflict and radical change.
From this viewpoint any process of change involves tension between
incompatible forces. Dialectical movement therefore represents a struggle of opposites,
a conflict of contradictions. Conflict provides the dynamic principle, the source of
change. The struggle between incompatible forces grows in intensity until there is a
final collision. The result is a sudden leap forward which creates a new set of forces on
a higher level of development. The dialectical process then begins again as the
contradictions between this new set of forces interact and conflict, and propel change.
4.2.1. Bureaucracy - a Marxian Perspective
From a Marxian perspective, bureaucracy can only be understood in relation to
the forces of production. Thus in capitalist society, where the forces of production are
owned by a minority, the ruling class, state bureaucracy will inevitably represent the
interests of that class.
Since state bureaucracy is ultimately shaped by a capitalist infrastructure, its
control can only be eliminated by a radical change in that infrastructure. In terms of
48
Introduction
Marxian theory, this requires the communal ownership of the forces of production.
Since state bureaucracy is basically a repressive means of control, it must be smashed
and replaced by new, truly democratic institutions. Lenin looked forward to a future in
which all may become "bureaucrats" for a time and that, therefore, nobody may be able
to become a "bureaucrat”. He envisaged mass participation in administration which
would involve ‘control and supervision by all'. In this way the repressive state
bureaucracies of the West would be replaced by a truly democratic system[92].
Marxian view seems to be in complete contradiction to the present system of
bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is for the public good and the public service, and definitely
does not have its roots in the capitalist system. Infact, bureaucracy is associated with the
power and prestige, drawn from the rules of the book, rather than the money and the
sources of production.
4.3. Robert Michels - Bureaucracy and Democracy
Michels believes democracy to be inconceivable without organization. Once
established, bureaucracy brings with it all the deficiencies which Michels believes are
an integral part of such organizations. Dependent on the orders and direction of
superiors, the initiative of subordinates is crushed. Individuality is suppressed as
bureaucrats slavishly follow official procedures and regulations. There is a `mania for
promotion'. With advancement dependent on the judgment of higher authority,
subordinates bow and scrape to their superiors while adopting an arrogant stance to
those beneath them in the hierarchy [93].
4.4. Robert K. Merton-the Dysfunctions of bureaucracy
The American sociologist Robert K. Merton expanded on Weber's theories of
bureaucracy in his work Social Theory and Social Structure, published in 1957. While
Merton agreed with certain aspects of Weber's analysis, he also considered the
dysfunctional aspects of bureaucracy, which he attributed to a "trained incapacity"
resulting from "over-conformity." He saw bureaucrats as more likely to defend their
own entrenched interests than to act to benefit the organization as a whole. He also
believed bureaucrats took pride in their craft, which led them to resist changes in
established routines. Merton also noted that bureaucrats emphasized formality over
49
Introduction
interpersonal relationships, and had been trained to ignore the special circumstances
of particular cases, causing them to come across as "arrogant" and "haughty".
Robert K. Merton argues that certain aspects of bureaucratic procedure may be
dysfunctional to the organization. In particular, they may encourage behaviour which
inhibits the realization of organizational goals. Firstly, the bureaucrat is trained to
comply strictly with the rules but when situations arise which are not covered by the
rules, this training may lead to inflexibility and timidity. Secondly, the devotion to the
rules encouraged in bureaucratic organizations, may lead to a displacement of goals.
There is a tendency for conformity to official regulations, to become an end in itself
rather than a means to an end. Thirdly, the emphasis on impersonality in bureaucratic
procedures may lead to friction between officials and the public.
While agreeing that the various elements of bureaucracy outlined in Weber’s
ideal type serve to further organizational efficiency, Merton maintains that they
inevitably produce dysfunctional consequences. He suggests that `the very elements
which conduce towards efficiency in general, produce inefficiency in specific
instances'[94].
4.5.
Alvin W. Gouldner - Degree of Bureaucratization
Gouldner’s concern was to clarify some of the social processes leading to
different degrees of bureaucratization. His study resulted in a number of tentative
conclusions. Firstly, bureaucratic administration is more suited to some tasks than
others. In particular, it is not well suited to non-routine, unpredictable operations.
Secondly, the advance of bureaucracy is not inevitable as Weber and others have
implied. Thirdly, Gouldner suggests that sociologists who are concerned with a utopian
vision which involves the abolition of bureaucracy would be more fruitfully employed
in identifying those social processes creating variations in the amount and types of
bureaucracy. For these variations do make a vital difference in the lives of men. By
directing their research to this area, sociologists may be able to give directions to those
who wish to create organizations with greater democracy and freedom [95].
50
Introduction
4.6.
Symbolic Interactionism and Bureaucracy
It is sometimes described as a phenomenological perspective because of its
emphasis on the actor’s views and interpretations of social reality.
4.6.1. George Herbert Mead
In Mead's view, human thought, experience and conduct are essentially social.
They owe their nature to the fact that human beings interact in terms of symbols, the
most important of which are contained in language. A symbol does not simply stand for
an object or event: it defines them in a particular way and indicates a response to them.
Without symbols there would be no human interaction and no human society. Symbolic
interaction is necessary since man has no instincts to direct his behaviour: He is not
genetically programmed to react automatically to particular stimuli. In order to survive
he must therefore construct and live within a world of meaning. Mead argues that
through the process of role taking, the individual develops a concept of self. By placing
himself in the position of others, he is able to look back upon himself.
To do this he must observe himself from the standpoint of others. Therefore the
origin and development of a concept of self lies in the ability to make the role of
another.
Mead's view of human interaction sees man as both actively creating the social
environment and being shaped by it. The individual initiates and directs his own action
while at the same time being influenced by the attitudes and expectations of others in
the form of the generalized other. The individual and society are regarded as
inseparable, for the individual can only become a human being in a social context. In
this context, he develops a sense of self which is a prerequisite for thought. He learns to
take the roles of others which is essential both for the development of self and for
cooperative action. Without communication in terms of symbols, whose meanings are
shared, these processes would not be possible. Man therefore lives in a world of
symbols which give meaning and significance to life and provide the basis for human
interaction.
51
Introduction
4.7. Ethno Methodology and Bureaucracy
It is concerned with examining the methods and procedures employed by
members of the society to construct, account for and give meaning to their social
world.
Ethno
methodologists
draw
heavily
on
the
European
tradition
of
phenomenological philosophy and in particular acknowledge a debt to the ideas of the
philosopher-sociologist Alfred Schutz (1899 -1959). Many ethno methodologists begin
with the assumption that society exists only in so far as members perceive its existence.
(The term ‘member’ replaces the interactionist term ‘actor’.) With this emphasis on
members' views of social reality, ethno methodology is generally regarded as a
phenomenological approach. Ethno methodology is a developing perspective which
contains a diversity of viewpoints.
They were mainly concerned with the problem of the social order, believing that
actually no social order existed in the society. The members of the society presumed
social order existing, as it was convenient for them to do so.
4.7.1. Don H. Zimmerman - The Practicalities of Rule Use
The bureaucrat is usually seen as strictly conforming to formal rules or else
acting in terms of a system of informal rules. In either case his behaviour is seen to be
governed by rules. Zimmerman's study suggests an alternative perspective. Rather than
seeing behaviour as governed by rules, he suggests that members employ rules to
describe and account for their activity. Part of this activity may be in direct violation of
a stated rule, yet it is still justified with reference to the rule.
Zimmerman claims that his research indicates that the actual practices of using
rules do not permit an analyst to account for regular patterns of behaviour by invoking
the notion that these practices occur because members of society are following rules. He
argues that the use of rules by members to describe and account for their conduct makes
social settings appear orderly for the participants and it is this sense and appearance of
order that rules in use, in fact, provide and what the ethno methodologists, in fact,
study[96].
52
Introduction
While recognizing bureaucracy as the most efficient form of organization, and
even indispensable for the modern state, Weber also saw it as a threat to individual
freedoms, and the ongoing bureaucratization as leading to a dehumanization, in which
increasing rationalization of human life traps individuals in a bureaucratic, rulebased, rational control.
Thus, Weber’s bureaucratic model has provided a base, upon which all other
theoretical concepts have been based and formulated. Although the modern theoretical
concepts seem to be more relevant for the contemporary times, they are still auxiliary to
the fundamentals provided by the Weberian concept of bureaucracy.
5.
Emergence and Development of bureaucracy
Bureaucracy is one of the oldest institutions of government and administration
in history. Thus, bureaucracy and administration are as old as human civilization,
where one promotes the other, resulting in an intimate relationship between
civilization and administration.
5.1.
Bureaucracy at the Global level
Bureaucracy, as an institution of government and administration, has its roots
in the ancient world, where it played a formidable role in the administration of great
empires and civilizations like Persian, Chinese and Roman. Bureaucracy, with its
traditions, provided continuity and order to many civilizations and their administrative
systems for several millions of years. The fact is that while Chinese, Egyptian and
Roman bureaucracies were instrumental in getting the things done and assisting in
political rule, the Persian bureaucracy developed and advanced to the highest level.
Even today, the scholars analyse its features and learn from its superb advancement.
The earliest origin of bureaucracy dates back to about 10,000 years beginning in
ancient Susa, one of the earliest sites of human civilizations in early Iran [97].
Perhaps the early example of a bureaucrat is the scribe, who first arose as a
professional on the early cities of Sumer. The Sumerian script was so complicated that
it required specialists who had trained for their entire lives in the discipline of writing
to manipulate it. These scribes could wield significant power; as they had a total
53
Introduction
monopoly on the keeping of records and creation of inscriptions on monuments to
kings.
In later, larger empires like Achaemenid Persia, bureaucracies quickly
expanded as government expanded and increased its functions. In the Persian Empire,
the central government was divided into administrative provinces led by satraps. The
satraps were appointed by the Shah to control the provinces. In addition, a general and
a royal secretary were stationed in each province to supervise troop recruitment and
keep records, respectively. The Achaemenid Great Kings also sent royal inspectors to
tour the empire and report on local conditions. The Persian bureaucracy was the most
complex, structured and effective. Persian administrators were considered the most
able and excellent administrators.
The most modernesque of all ancient bureaucracies, however, was the Chinese
bureaucracy. During the chaos of the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring
States Period, Confucius recognized the need for a stable system of administrators to
lend good governance even when the leaders were inept. Chinese bureaucracy, first
implemented during the Qin dynasty but under more Confucian lines under the Han,
calls for the appointment of bureaucratic positions based on merit via a system of
examinations. Although the power of the Chinese bureaucrats waxed and waned
throughout China's long history, the imperial examination system lasted as late as
1905, and modern China still employs a formidable bureaucracy in its daily workings.
Modern bureaucracies arose as the government of states grew larger during the
modern period, and especially following the Industrial Revolution. As the authors
David Osborne and Ted Gaebler point out. "It is hard to imagine today, but a hundred
years ago, bureaucracy meant something positive. It connoted a rational, efficient
method of organization - something to take the place of the arbitrary exercise of
power by authoritarian regimes. Bureaucracy brought the same logic to government
work that the assembly line brought to the factory. With the hierarchical authority and
functional specialization, they made possible for efficient undertaking of large
complex tasks” [98].
Tax collectors, perhaps the most reviled of all bureaucrats, became
increasingly necessary as states began to take in more and more revenue, while the
54
Introduction
role of administrators increased as the functions of government multiplied. Along
with this expansion. though, came the recognition of the corruption and nepotism
often inherent within the managerial system, leading to civil service reform on a large
scale in many countries towards the end of the 19th century.
Most advanced, industrialized democracies developed a professional,
permanent bureaucracy around the middle of the nineteenth century. European
reformers argued that the expanding role of government in a more urbanized and
industrialized society required professional bureaucrats to make government work.
Bureaucracies should consist, particularly at their highest levels, of highly educated
and trained people, organized rationally, not of people who were selected on the basis
of whom they knew or had supported in the previous election. Such arguments were
made forcefully in the United States as well, particularly later in the nineteenth
century by Progressive reformers. However, the shift from patronage to a
professionalized, merit-based bureaucracy ran into problems in the United States.
First, the notion that making government work required special skills, talents, or
education, had been rejected by the Jacksonians as incompatible with American
values of equality and participation. In the Federalist era, the United States had taken
some limited steps along the road toward the creation of a bureaucracy composed of
socially superior and educated men. Andrew Jackson reversed these trends, firmly
establishing the notion that any (white) man could run government. Second,
government jobs were crucial to the working of American political parties until well
into the twentieth century; "to the victor the spoils" was a key principle of party
organization. Supporters expected to be rewarded with, among other things,
government jobs if their party won.
In spite of these problems, reformers did ultimately secure the creation of a
merit based system. The assassination of President James A. Garfield by a
disappointed job seeker also highlighted the difficulties of operating a patronage
system. The triumph of the Progressive reformers seemed to be completed by the New
Deal, which resulted in a vast expansion in the number of government agencies and
jobs. The practical problems of staffing the much-expanded government machine with
political appointees, and the scale of political power that such vast opportunities for
patronage could produce, were compelling reasons for completing the transition to a
55
Introduction
bureaucracy recruited and promoted on the basis of merit. From the New Deal
onward, the majority of government jobs were awarded on the basis of merit, not
patronage.
Yet the special factors inhibiting the growth of a professional bureaucracy in
the United States insured that the reformers' triumph was never total. American
government remained distinctive compared with other advanced industrialized
democracies in retaining a thick layer of political appointees at the top of government
departments. For much of the twentieth century, it seemed as though this layer of
political appointees would gradually diminish in the face of practical problems and
pressures from reformers. However, in the last few decades of the twentieth century,
the number of political appointees began to increase again. In contrast to the situation
in other advanced, industrialized democracies, the permanent bureaucracy was largely
excluded from participation in policy making and was relegated to mere policy
implementation.
5.2.
Bureaucracy in India
The idea of an organised civil service originated with the East India Company.
After the British came to India, they brought the semblance of bureaucracy beginning
in the Warren Hastings’ regime through the Regulation Act, 1772. The All India
Services were not created at one and the same time. The Weber’s concept of political
neutrality had already formed part of the British Civil Service, which later became
operative in the Indian situation. The Indian Civil Service (ICS) owed its early
organisation to Warren Hastings, who created the office of the collector on the 14th of
May, 1772 [99].
The history of the organization of Bureaucracy in India goes back to the times
when the East India Company decided to stand forth as Diwan and to take over the
administration of the three provinces ceded to them, into their own hands. The native
servants were replaced by European officials known as Collectors who were
appointed by Warren Hastings to supervise the collection of revenue and the
administration of justices. Lord Cornwallis put these officers on a permanent basis by
including them in a “covenanted " service. All superior posts in the administration
were reserved by the Act of 1793 for the members of this service and in order to equip
56
Introduction
them for their task, they were required to undergo training in Haileybury College,
started in England in 1806. The nominations to this service were made by the Court of
Directors.
The Institute of the Covenanted Services included all to the exclusion of
Indians from all positions of importance. This was naturally resented in India but all
that was done to respect Indian sentiment was to include the following provision in
the Charter Act of 1833. "No native of the said territories nor any natural born subject
of His Majesty, residing therein shall by reason only of his religion, place of birth,
descent, colour, be disabled from holding any place, office or employment under the
said company"
[100].
This clause only declared that Indians were not disqualified or
debarred from holding position of responsibility but nothing was done to pursue any
definite policy of appointing Indians to higher posts. In practice Indians were,
excluded from the Covenanted Service and were employed only as clerks and
subordinates.
Lord Macaulay, first of all, introduced the system of recruitment of civil
servants through competitive examinations in the year 1853, who were recruited from
among the University graduates having bright academic career
[101].
The power of
nomination to the Covenanted Services was taken away from the Directors and the
appointments were thrown open to competition but as the examinations were held in
London, Indians found it impossible to compete with students of British Universities
on terms of equality. Lack of higher educational facilities in India, difficulties of
distance and social taboos sufficed to keep Indians out of the way. In 1870, the
principle of nominating a few Indians without asking them to undergo the competitive
test was adopted to secure every year one or two persons for the judicial branch of the
civil service. In 1879, this principle was extended to secure recruits for the
administrative branch too, but candidates of requisite qualification could not be had in
adequate numbers. This experiment was therefore dropped and a Commission
reported in 1879 and recommended the division of the Indian Civil Service into three
branches: the Indian Civil Service, the Provincial Civil Service and the Subordinate
Civil Service. The recruitment of the Indian Civil Service was to continue to be made
in England but recruitment to the other services was to be made in India. This was
expected to give a chance to Indians to hold posts of some responsibility.
57
Introduction
During the period 1853-1919, the members of the ICS put the interests of
India, as they saw them, far above their own fortunes. Efficiency and ability were the
hall mark of the service. The Government of India Act 1919, provided for the first
time, for the division in the field of administration into two spheres, the central and
provincial.
Weberian view of bureaucracy did not apply to the Indian situation for the
greater part of the British rule. Democracy was introduced as late as in 1935 in the
provinces. Civil servants were subject to ministerial control. But the presence of
imperialism made this control more formal than real.
The Indian Administrative Service is a legacy of and modelled on the basis of
the Indian Civil Service founded by British in India. The Indian Civil Services
examination was held only in England by the British Civil Services Commission till
1922, and thereafter in India. In 1926, the newly formed Public Service Commission
was constituted for India, and the Commission began to conduct the ICS
examinations. However in 1947, a combined examination was introduced for
recruitment to the Indian Administrative Services (IAS), Indian Police Services (IPS)
and Non-technical Central Services [102].
The Indian Civil Service during the pre-independence era essentially remained
British in its basic nature and traditions. The service judged every man by the quality
of his work - of course, the yardstick being British. The service embodied the British
concept of duty, public as well as personal, but its primary function was to govern.
The duty being to perform functions in accordance with the British standards of
justice, with emphasis on the rule of law. Serious failures on the part of British
Officers were never ignored. The administration had inner intrinsic strength and its
outward prestige.
There were no barriers and walls between the common people
and the Officers. The Government was in touch with the people and was fully aware
of the ground realities and psychology of the people. But it was bureaucratic with no
democratic control. The administration and the British rule in India meant the
unchecked authoritarian rule of a single individual- the Governor, an agent of
the
Viceroy, who could ignore the Ministers and the Ministers, could not dare to disobey
the orders from above or even interfere with the discretion of the services supposed to
be subordinate to them. Viceroys belonging to the ruling class, who came direct to
58
Introduction
India from England, had to fit in with and rely upon the Indian Civil Service
Structure, which always thought of their own good instead of good of India. The
structure and functions of bureaucracy during British period were mostly outcome of
politics and economics of colonialism and due to limited range of Government
activities, much scope was not left for quantitative growth and qualitative changes in
administrative tasks [103].
The characteristics of British administrative bureaucracy did depict
theoretically correspondence and conformity to the Weberian rational model. As a
formal structure it also depicted a rational system of coordination of activities
including rule-efficiency, impartiality and understanding of the problems of the
country. Suited to the government of the day, it served its masters eminently and also
contributed to the national unity and internal order in the country. The British
Government in India remained a bureaucracy until the formation of the Interim
Government in September, 1946, when the balance tilted in favour of democracy for
the first time.
The present administrative structure of India has emerged from the British
colonial system; their major interest was to exploit India's resources. The
administration was mainly concerned with the maintenance of law and order and the
revenue collections. Negligible attention was given to the administration as an
instrument of economic and social change. When the new Government took over in
1947, it found that the administrative machinery had become considerably weak and
the situation worst. The functioning of the democratic process had failed to restore
efficiency in the administration to its desired and pre-independence standards [104].
Formerly, the bureaucracy in India had to function in the background of
colonial rule and imperial order but it is now supposed to work in the frame work of a
democratic set up with active involvement of the people for whose welfare the state
exists. The fundamental question in the context of India has therefore been, whether
the administrative system, developed and nurtured in a colonial setting, could be
useful in a free democratic state and show its commitment to the cause of society and
at the same time be responsive also.
Bureaucracy in India, today, is placed in different circumstances. The Indian
state is no more a police state and bureaucracy no more unaccountable to the people.
59
Introduction
The concept of welfare state has been accepted. Bureaucracy today is headed by the
leaders of the masses who are committed to the principles of democratic socialism
and egalitarianism. It has to function in consonance with their desires, and wishes.
Nation-building and socio-economic progress being the major goals before the nation,
it is required to spearhead socio-political modernization and socio-economic progress.
The administrator is no more required to be a symbol of power . He is required
to come out of the jungle of rules and show his initiative and professional orientation,
manipulative skill and evaluative perspective. With increasing democratic
decentralization, he is expected to dislodge his power aura, come closer to the masses
and be responsive to their needs and wishes. But administrative machinery to its
present day remains to be the legacy and replica of the British system. It remains
intact – not only in its formal structure but also in the form of established habits,
prejudices, interests and expectations as established by the Britishers in a different
context.
The quantity or volume of the administrative staff had increased manifolds but
deteriorated in quality in the post- independence period. Soon after independence, our
government dropped the “your obedient servant” signature pattern that appeared in all
the letters that civil servants wrote
[105].
At the time, it seemed to be a trivial change
but it soon assumed a lot of significance. The IAS officers quickly ceased to be the
servants of the people and turned into masters and that too not honest masters.
An important feature of administrative development in the post-independence
period was a shift of emphasis from the old and traditional method of trial and error to
that of administrative analysis based on work and performance studies in depth, as a
precondition for administrative change.
The ‘steel frame’ of administration inherited from British structure, somehow
continues to be the same but our bureaucrats behave like foreigners in their own
country, while administering. Thus, bureaucracy in India at present, is the product of
two different sets of influences: the British traditions and the democratic welfare
system [106].
5.3.
Bureaucracy in the Modern World
The twentieth century saw massive growth and development of bureaucracy
with the rise of new nation states, the end of official colonialism, and expansion and
60
Introduction
competition of the two ideological systems of capitalism and socialism across the
globe. The states expanded their realms of functions beyond limits and thus expanded
a burgeoning bureaucracy beyond any defined scope or domain. At the same time,
citizens, politicians, corporate business leaders and academicians intensified a crusade
against bureaucracy. They sought dismantlement of the so-called welfare
administrative systems and privatisation of almost everything that the governments
had been doing so far. Today, the result is a crisis of order and continuity, chaos and
corruption, especially in governance government and public administration
[107].
Albeit, the modern bureaucracy of the western world, advanced with sophistication
had reached its height of power, expertise and institutional capacities everywhere.
Bureaucracy played a formidable role in public governance and administration. It is
also responsible for many achievements, although the 21st century is undergoing rapid
globalisation, almost resulting in a global chaos. Even, bureaucracy as an old
institution is in a serious crisis everywhere, because its institutional capacity has been
eroded to the limit. But, in spite of everything, bureaucracy has survived millions of
changes and thus it will persist, though its character and functions have altered
tremendously.
The development of modernizing societies requires a high level of public
administrative competence
[108].
A systematic approach to remove poverty, to
eradicate illiteracy, and to improve the living conditions of the majority of the masses
is not possible without the active participation of the government. Bureaucracy is an
important variable, influencing every type of change, be it social, economic, political
or technological.
Bureaucracy is a part of the political system and has to keep pace with the
changing political, cultural and religious values which are increasingly infiltrating
into the process of modernization. In the world overcast with strife where self and
greed guide both political philosophy and action, there cannot be any ray of hope and
inspiration, peace and prosperity.
Bureaucracy, as is well known, is an important agency of modernization. Any
major change in social, economic and political life of the nation is inconceivable
without bureaucracy [109]. In modern times, when there is a massive intervention of the
government and extensive state participation, it would be unrealistic to think of the
national development of any kind in its absence. And, the tasks of development are to
61
Introduction
be accomplished by the bureaucrats at different levels of administration. Bureaucracy,
being legal-rational system, requires its functionaries to internalize objective codes of
conduct and values for the realization of the goals of national development. The role
of bureaucracy in effecting socio-economic-political changes on the lines of
modernity, therefore, requires such central tendencies and orientations in public
administration as hierarchy, responsibility, rationality, achievement-orientation,
specialization and differentiation, and professionalization [110].
5.4.
Bureaucracy in Jammu and Kashmir*
Jammu & Kashmir is the northernmost and the most strategically placed state
in the country. The bureaucracy in J&K existed almost before Independence, when
the rules relating to the Administrative Services in the state were framed by the then
Government in March, 1939 vide Kashmir Civil Services (General) Council Order
No. 1328-C of 1939. Subsequently these rules were replaced by the Civil Services
Rules (General) 1954, which remained in force for only two years. This order was
partially modified by Cabinet Order No. 1630-C of 1955. Thus, a State
Administrative Services was created for the J&K state. This service was called the
Kashmir Civil Services (Executive). Thereafter, Jammu and Kashmir Administrative
Services was reconstituted in the year 1962, vide SRO-3 of 1962, which comprised of
all services besides the Executive /Revenue Services. The All India Services was
extended to the state of Jammu and Kashmir in the year 1958, as a result of which
some officers of the State were inducted into IAS in that year. Since then, the Jammu
and Kashmir Administrative Service Rules have been repealed and amended again
and again in 1979, 1986,1987,1990,1996 and 1998
The first examination for direct recruits to the KAS was conducted by the
State Public Service Commission in December, 1964 and the appointments were
made in 1965. ….. many of the departments have been gradually evolved in
compliance with current needs, and the purposes for which they were called into
being have gradually so altered that the later stages of the process have not accorded
in principle with those that were reached earlier. In other instances, departments
appear to have been rapidly established without preliminary insistence or definition of
function and precise assignment of responsibility. (Haldane Report, 1918).The
statement sounds so much apt for the conditions of bureaucracy in J&K.
62
Introduction
When India gained independence in 1947, Jammu and Kashmir was being
ruled by Maharajas. The emergence of a political leader at that time awakened the
masses of J&K towards a new era of political enlightenment. But this visionary
movement was short lived and the people of J&K were once again left in the lurch, as
accession to India become inevitable. As the dynamic leadership of J&K, which had
lately emerged, became coloured with certain motivating factors, the masses of J&K
could resist no more. Newly exposed to the political movements and uprisings, the
people of J&K lost their direction.
With the complete accession of J&K to India, the reins were taken over by the
Government of India. This started the era of political instability in J&K. The
government in J&K started with the non-local bureaucracy, whose impersonal attitude
and apathy towards the locals aggravated the situation.
The recruitment pattern in the government was not fool proof at all. The locals
were not given a place in the system for a long period; which led to the alienation of
the masses from the government business. Besides the creation of bottle necks for the
people of J&K in joining the administrative services, the menace of reservation policy
had emerged. The policy of reservations left very little scope for the Kashmiris to
enter the administrative services. This alienated the common masses from the
administrative services further.
Finally all the factors put together created the vices of nepotism and corruption
in Kashmir. All the lucrative positions were filled with the people motivated by
selfish gains. Thus corruption flourished. Due to nepotism, all the efficient and honest
officers were side lined, with no value of merit and capabilities.
The then existing government made policies for J&K, which were not peoplefriendly, thus sowing the seeds of rebellion in the Kashmiri youth. The situation
aggravated in the later decades and finally exploded in the form of militancy in the
80’s. Administration in J&K, almost became defunct for more than two decades. The
common masses became demotivated and demoralised. The administrative
bureaucracy was associated with the remnants of the colonial rule and thus people
started perceiving bureaucracy with hatred and disgust. They distanced themselves
from the government. Thus, alienation of the common masses from J&K bureaucracy
started and further gave rise to many vices in the whole administrative setup. People
63
Introduction
completely lost faith in the bureaucracy, as most of the bureaucrats had been selected
through unfair means, were not people-friendly at all and depicted an unproductive
elitist class.
Some vital amendments were made in 1998, and thereafter promotions and
selections were made on the basis of merit, suitability and reputation. In the
meantime, political turmoil and agitations had already started in the state, which led to
an immense political unrest, breakdown of the government machinery, and the social
and psychological disturbances. The chasm between the masses in J&K and the
bureaucracy grew wider during this long period, which finally led to the lack of
confidence of the public in the government systems.
The state has been made dependent on the central aid. The bureaucracy is
hardly able to play its role to fruitfully utilize the central grants for the required
development. Being a trouble-prone state, it is pertinent to bring it into the
mainstream of national life as urgently as possible. Besides, the existing red tapism
and lack of accountability in J&K greatly tells upon the efficiency and role
performance of the bureaucracy.
The J&K bureaucracy consists of the state cadre bureaucrats, i.e. those who
belong to the Kashmir Administrative Services and are the state subjects, and the
centre cadre bureaucrats, i.e. those who belong to the Indian Administrative & other
allied Services and are the non-state subjects. A perpetual tussle seems to be on,
between these two categories of the bureaucrats vis-à-vis their placements,
promotions and perks. Although, eventually the senior KAS bureaucrats are inducted
into the IAS cadre, a thin line of differentiation seems to segregate them throughout.
A chasm was also created as no candidate was selected for KAS for a couple of
decades during the political turmoil, leading to an imbalance and inconsistency in the
J&K administrative system. Albeit, both IAS and KAS cadre bureaucrats are trying
their best to minimize their gaps and differences, and own their duties and
responsibilities, amidst all the infrastructural bottlenecks and political interferences.
Political interferences rampantly exist in the J&K bureaucratic structure, thus
weakening the avenues of the administrative development.
*The above information regarding the bureaucracy in Jammu & Kashmir has been acquired after
thorough discussions with the retired bureaucrats. Not much was available in the form of secondary
source of information, therefore, the information revealed by some retired senior level bureaucrats was
analytically perceived and recorded to substantiate the empirical data.
64
Introduction
6. Statement of the Problem
A thorough analysis needed to be done of the problems faced by the
bureaucracy in J&K and the prospects of this institution in J&K in the times to come.
For any further study of the administrative progress to take place, it was pertinent to
acknowledge the stage of development that the bureaucracy had reached in J&K at
this particular period. The autocratic and colonial legacy of the state has left lasting
imprints on the present bureaucratic system of J&K. An assessment was made of the
extent to which J&K bureaucracy has been able to divorce itself from the colonial
psyche and develop its own idiosyncrasies.
Bureaucracy in J&K has passed through various phases since its emergence
and after over two decades of political turmoil, it has started its stabilization process
again. But even today, the bureaucracy retains the stigma of inaccessibility and a kind
of a halo effect for the general masses. Common masses demand to do away with the
most fundamental institution of governance i.e. bureaucracy, ironically at a stage
when it has yet to reach the stage of complete maturity. People perpetually harbour
the notion of the bureaucracy being hostile towards them, which complicates the
situation all the more. The performance of the bureaucracy needs to be monitored and
evaluated with a view to cutting back waste and providing value for money, keeping
in view its historical background. The role of bureaucracy in J&K has been affected
due to certain factors like the militancy that lasted for about more than two decades,
the subsequent militarization, the inaccessibility of the bureaucrats to the masses, the
hostility of the masses towards the government authorities in turn and the political,
social and emotional upheavals in the state.
Little has been done to sustain bureaucracy in its true colours in J&K. In
fact, all its present characteristics point towards a malfunctioned bureaucracy. A lot
of existing factors could lead towards the death of the J&K bureaucracy, even
before its sluggish growth had reached its culmination. J&K being a very vulnerable
state, having faced many political, social and emotional upheavals, has a maximum
possibility of such an eventuality. J&K bureaucracy has not been able to properly
demonstrate its mettle and strength in the prevailing circumstances. Much needs to
be done, to sustain the bureaucratic structure and the subsequent administrative
65
Introduction
setup in J&K. There is a need to take the right initiatives in the first place, with
effective implementation and follow-ups, later on.
7. Relevance and Significance of the Study
Today there is increasing concern about the complex organisations, as they
harbour depersonalisation and unresponsiveness to the social needs. There is a
complex kind of a resource allocation within them and they wield a different of power
in society. Public sector bureaucracy is one of the most complex organisations in the
world today. With the passage of time, more and more of activities are organised
within the bureaucracy. More of the nation’s wealth is allocated and distributed
through decisions taken within the bureaucracy. On the other hand, the rule bound
behaviour of bureaucrats, which results in red tape, frequently frustrates the clients or
the public.
Bureaucracy is also popularly viewed by citizens as being inefficient, arrogant
and Machiavellian:
Bureaucracy is seen as
a.
too specialised,
b.
bound by rigid rules and procedures,
c.
stupid and blundering,
d.
slow and buck passing,
e.
empire building,
f.
depicting political favouritism, and
g.
interfering with democratic rights[111] .
A better understanding of the different facets of bureaucracy after proper
empirical analysis could stall the anti-bureaucratic movement that is gaining impetus.
After all, no other institution can ever replace the institution of bureaucracy in its
truest form, as is reiterated by many social scientists now and again.
If we have to achieve the goals of welfare state and make administration a
vehicle for fulfilling the aspirations of masses, an overhauling of the bureaucratic
system is necessary. The present administrative system which still has a streak of
authoritarianism will have to be made more democratic in its functioning as to enable
66
Introduction
it to cope up with numerous problems which confront it daily including the one of
redressal of citizens' grievances.
Consequently, there is a growing need for smoothening the relationship
between the various tiers of the system, viz., the citizen and the administrator, the
administrator and the politician, and the generalist and the specialist, vis-à-vis the law
and order machinery of the state, so that a united front, conducive to the climate of
modernization is created and the impediments by way of caste, creed, colour and
culture are swept away from the path thereof. There was a need to study the
bureaucratic role & approach in J&K, as the state has seen an administrative dysfunctioning for at least past two decades, during the period of turmoil. It was
important to assess whether the broken thread had been taken over again and in what
form.
8. Hypothesis of the Study
This study has been carried out with a belief that the system of bureaucracy in
J&K although progressing, has not emerged holistically and has to cross many stages
of development. The lacunas in this institution should be attributed to many factors
like the political upheavals, economic instability, educational backwardness, cultural
constraints, geographical infeasibility and the psychological disturbances of the
masses of J&K.
Emergence of bureaucracy can be attributed to societal need to have a sound
and skilled organization whose members possess specialized expertise and provide
certainty, continuity and unity in a methodical, anonymous, impersonal and
independent manner. German sociologist Max Weber called bureaucracy as the most
technically proficient form of organization. A bureaucrat takes pride in being
systematic and meticulous.
Over a period of time, rigid adherences to rules, regulations, systems and
procedures have gained ascendancy over every other trait. In a way, the whole
administrative functioning has become captive of regulations, conventions and
precedence. Every proposal comes to be examined as per the precedence. It has made
the bureaucracy live in the past rather than be futuristic and progressive. Gradually, it
67
Introduction
has become an uncongenial, faceless and soulless system without any welfare
orientation. Maintenance of status-quo and abhorrence for change have become
common traits now. Every bureaucrat is wary of infusion of newer ideas and
techniques, lest his own qualifications and competence may become irrelevant.
Besides, as the past political turmoil in J&K has left its effect on the lives and the
psyche of the people, they have subsequently become averse to the whole of the
administrative machinery. But even at this stage, initiatives can be taken to change the
whole scenario and bring in positive results. The bureaucratic officials need to
enhance human relation skills, so that people regain their confidence in the working of
the system. Also the bureaucracy needs to become more efficient and effective in
coping with the administrative issues.
9. Objectives of the Study
The research aimed at studying the following specific objectives:
1. The pattern of emergence of bureaucracy
existence in the present day.
in J&K and the need for its
2. The nature & importance of the role of bureaucracy in J&K, in the post 1947
period & the present modern scenario, with its critique.
3. The limitations vis-à-vis the role of bureaucracy in J&K.
4. The ideal type characteristics of bureaucracy, with their relevance for J&K
bureaucracy, in the contemporary times.
5. The extent of depersonalisation & unresponsiveness of bureaucracy to the
social needs in J&K.
6. The symptoms of over-bureaucratization & the consequent onset of
bureaucratic degeneration.
7. The possibilities of an efficient & effective bureaucracy in J&K, in the years
to come.
68
References
REFERENCES
1.
Ahmad, Furqan., Bureaucracy And Development Administration, New Delhi,
1995, Manak Publications, p 15.
2.
Goyal, Sudershan Kumar., Bureaucratic Administration in India, Allahabad,
1985, Chugh Publications, p 1.
3.
Weber, Max., Theory of Social and Economic Organization, Parsons,
Talcott. (Editor), New York, 1968, the Free Press.
4.
Blau, Peter M., The Dynamics of Bureaucracy, (2nded), Chicago, 1973,
University of Chicago Press.
5.
Venkatachalam. D., Bureaucracy – An Evaluation and A Scheme of
Accountability, New Delhi, 1998, APH Publishing Corporation, p 1.
6.
Weber, Max., Economy and Society (Vol.2), Berkeley, 1978, University of
California Press, pp 987 & 1403.
7.
Hill, Larry.B.(Ed.), The State of Public Bureaucracy, New York, 1992, M.E.
Sharpe Inc , p 1.
8.
Pathak, Harbans., Politicized Bureaucracy, in Hoshiar Singh (Ed.), Higher
Civil Services in India, Kurukshetra, 1995, Nirmal Book Agency , p 138.
9.
Farazmund, Ali., (Ed.), Bureaucracy and Administration, New York, 2009,
in Bureaucracy, Administration & Politics: An Introduction , CRC Press,
Taylor and Francis Group, pp 5,6.
10.
Weber, Max., op. cit., No. 6, pp 218- 220.
11.
Hill, Larry. B, Bureaucracies, Public Administration and Public Policy, in
The State of Pubic Bureaucracy, by Hill, Larry. B. (Ed.), New York, 1992,
M.E. Sharpe, Inc., p 6.
12.
Kenneth, Culp. Davis., Administrative Law and Government, St. Paul,
Minnesota ,1960, West Publishing Co., p 17.
13.
Pierre, Jon., Conclusions: A Frame work of Comparative Public
Administration,
in
Bureaucracy
in
the
Modern
State,
by Pierre, Jon. (Ed.), England, 1995, Edward Elgar Publishing limited, pp 207
– 208.
14.
Harris, Richard., “Annual of Law: Taking the Fifth – 1”, New Yorker 52,
April 5, 1976, ,7, p 44.
15.
Jain, Darshana., The Good Administrator- Meeting Challenges Before
Government, New Delhi, 1999, Kanishka Publishers, pp 23-28.
16.
Pierre, Jon., op. cit., p 213.
69
References
17.
ibid, p 205.
18.
Rao, M.G. Ramakant & Mathur, Prashan K. (Eds.), Perspectives and
Retrospectives, in Bureaucratic System and Public Policy, New Delhi, 1999,
Kanishka Publishers, p 268.
19.
Linden, Russell. M., Seamless Government, San Francisco, 1994, Jossey –
Bass Publishers, p 266.
20.
Das, Subsesh.K., Privatisation, in I Am Sorry: Indian Bureaucracy at
Crossroads, by Agrawal, Dr. P.K. & Vittal, N. (Eds.), New Delhi, 2005,
Manas Publications, p 199.
21.
Kramer, Fred. A. , Dynamics of Public Bureaucracy, Massachusetts, 1977,
Cambridge,Winthrop Publishers, Inc, p 273.
22.
Panwar, C.S., Bureaucracy in the New Millenium, in Public Administration
in the New Millenium, by Singh, Shiv Raj., Gill, P.P.S., Chauhan, Sewa
Singh., Mahajan Sanjev, K.(Eds.), New Delhi, 2003, Anamika Publishers &
Distributors, p 545.
23.
Singhi, Narendra. Kumar., Bureaucracy: Positions & Persons, New Delhi,
1974, Abhinav Publications, p 194.
24.
Venkatachalam, D., op. cit., p 14.
25.
Parkinson, C.N., Excessive Controls and Bureaucracy, in Bureaucracy,
Politics and Administrative Challenge, by Raimann Pattanayak (Ed.), New
Delhi, 2003, Anmol Publications Pvt. Ltd., p 42.
26.
Rao, M.G. Ramakant & Mathur, Prashant. K. (Eds.), op. cit., p 264.
27.
Linden, Russell. M., op. cit., p 274.
28.
Panwar, C.S., op. cit., p 544.
29.
Weber, Max., op. cit., No. 3, pp. 215, 216.
30.
Parkinson, C.N., op. cit., No. 25, p 120
31.
Merton, R.K., (Ed.), Reader in Bureaucracy, 1963, Free Press, Glencoe,
Illinois, p 200.
32.
Goyal, Sudershan Kumar., op. cit., p 244.
33.
Meyer, Marshall. W., Change in Public Bureaucracies, New York, 1979,
Cambridge University Press, pp 208, 219.
34.
Rao, M.G. Ramakant & Mathur, Prashan K. (Eds.), op. cit., p 263.
35.
Ban, Carolyn., How do Public Managers Manage?, San Francisco, 1995,
Jossey-Bass Publishers, pp 2 – 7.
70
References
36.
Parkinson, C.N., Reforming Indian Bureaucracy in I am Sorry – Indian
Bureaucracy at Cross roads, by Aggrawal, P.K. & Vittal, N. (Eds.), New
Delhi, 2005, Manas Publications, p 137.
37.
Terry, Larry.D., Leadership of Public Bureaucracies, New York, 2003, M.E.,
Sharpe, p 5.
38.
Pederson, Harry., Performance – oriented Management, Virginia, 2003,
Management concepts, Inc, pp 243 - 245.
39.
Meyer, Marshall. W., op. cit., pp 183 - 184.
40.
Venkatachalam, D., op. cit., p 55.
41.
Weber, Max., Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, H. H. Gerth and C. Wright
Mills (Eds.), New York, 1946. Oxford University Press, p 214.
42.
Singhi, Narendra. Kumar., op. cit., p 194.
43.
Vittal, N., Corruption and the Rule of Law, in I am Sorry: Indian
Bureaucracy at Cross roads, by Dr. P.K. Agrawal & N. Vittal (Eds.), New
Delhi, 2005, Manas Publications, pp 250 – 256.
44.
ibid, p 257.
45.
Bennis, Warren. and Slater, Philip. E., The Temporary Society, New York,
1968, Paper and Row, pp 65-68.
46.
Panwar, C.S., op. cit., pp 545.
47.
Farazmand, Ali.(Ed.), op. cit., p 14.
48.
Jain, R.B. & Bongartz, Heinz. (Eds.), Structural Adjustment Public Policy
and Bureaucracy in Developing Societies, New Delhi, 1994, Har- Anand
Publications, p 413.
49.
Box, Richard. C., Making a Difference – Progressive Values in Public
Administration, New York, 2008, M.E. Sharpe, p 118.
50.
Rao, M.G. Ramakant & Mathur, Prashant. K. (Eds.), op. cit., p 263.
51.
Pierre, Jon., op. cit., pp 207 – 212.
52.
Peters, B. Guy., The Politics of Bureaucracy (6th Ed.), Oxon, 1995,
Routledge, p 262.
53.
Denhartt, Robert. B. & Perkins, Jan., The Coming Death of Administrative
Man, in Stivers, Camilla. (Ed.), Democracy, Bureaucracy and the Study of
Administration, Colorado, 2001, West view Press, p 415..
71
References
54.
Armstrong, Michael. & Baron, Angela., Performance Management – A
Strategic and Integrated Approach to Achieve Success, Mumbai, 2006, Jaico
Publishing House, pp 124 – 125.
55.
Pattanayak, Raimann, (Ed), Bureaucracy, Politics and Administrative
Challenge, Bangia, H.R., Assessment Report, Recruitment and Promotion in
Modern Bureaucracy, New Delhi, 2002, Anmol Publications, p 189.
56.
Jain, Darshana., op. cit., p 28.
57.
Peters, B. Guy., op. cit., p 78.
58.
Linden, Russell. M., op. cit., p 274.
59.
Pederson, Harry., op. cit., pp 239-242.
60.
Linden, Russell. M., op. cit., p 275 & 276.
61.
Hill, Larry. B. (Ed), op. cit., p 5.
62.
Meyer, Marshall. W., op. cit., p 208.
63.
Jackson, P.M., The Political Economy of Bureaucracy, New Delhi, 1983,
Heritage Publishers, pp 225 - 228.
64.
Goyal, Sudershan Kumar, op. cit., p 74.
65.
Singhi, Narendra. Kumar., op. cit., pp 38 - 44
66.
Agrawal, Dr. P.K. & Vittal, N. (Ed), I am Sorry – Indian Bureaucracy at
Cross roads, Kaw, Maharaj Krishan., What Ails Indian Bureaucracy?, New
Delhi,2005, Manas Publications, p 95.
67.
Pattanayak, Raimann, (Ed.), op. cit., p 193-194.
68.
Goyal, Sudershan Kumar, op. cit., pp 15 – 16.
69.
Jackson, P.M., op. cit., p 86-93.
70.
Kramer, Fred. A., op. cit., p 11.
71.
Leeuw, Frans L.; Rist, Ray C. & Sonnichsen, Richard C. (Ed.), Can
Governments Learn?, New Jersey, 1994, Transaction Publishers, pp 194-195.
72.
Rao, M.G. Ramakant & Mathur, Prashant. K. (Ed.), op. cit., pp 260, 265, 267
73.
Chitkara, M.G., Bureaucracy and Social Change, New Delhi,1994, Ashish
Publishing House, p 39-43..
74.
Sen, Brig. Shekhar. & Bhattacharya, Pradip., Ethics in Administration, in
Agrawal, Dr. P.K. & Vittal, N. (Ed.), I am sorry – Indian Bureaucracy at
Cross roads, New Delhi, 2005, Manas Publications, pp 54 – 57.
72
References
75.
Lee, Yong S. & Rosenbloom, David H., A Reasonable Public Servant,
London, 2005, M.E. Sharpe Inc., pp 231-236.
76.
Johnson, David., Government, Ontario, 2002, Broadview Press, p 18.
77.
Marx, F.M., The Higher Civil Servants as an Action Group in Western
Political Development, in Joseph La Palombara (Ed.), Bureaucracy and
Political Development, New Jersey, 1967, Princeton University Press, pp 6295.
78.
Weber, Max., op. cit., No. 3, pp. 330-334.
79.
Scott, W.G., op. cit., pp 41-42.
80.
Weber, Max., op. cit. , No. 3.
81.
Waters, Malcolm., Modern Sociological Theory, London,1994, Sage
Publications, pp 222- 224.
82.
Jacob, Charles. E., Policy and Bureaucracy, Princeton, New Jersey, 1996, D.
Van Nostrand Co., p 38.
83.
Mitzman, Arthur., The Iron Cage : An Historical Interpretation of Max
Weber, New York, 1970, Alfred. A. Knopf, p 232.
84.
Merton, Robert K., Bureaucratic Structure and Personality, in Social Theory
and Social Structure, Rev. and enl. ed. , New York, 1957, Free Press, pp 8590.
85.
Selznick, Philip., Leadership in Administration:
Interpretation, Evanston, 1957, Row, Peterson.
86.
Parsons, Talcott., Structure and Process in Modern Societies, Glencoe, 1960,
Free Press, pp 17-20.
87.
Blau, Peter M., op. cit., pp 50- 52.
88.
Singhi, Narendra. Kumar., op. cit., p 7
89.
Bennis, Warren., Organization Development, New York, 1969, Addison
Wesley Publishing Co., pp 19-122.
90.
Singhi, Narendra. Kumar., op. cit., pp 2-5.
91.
Waters, Malcolm., op. cit., pp 107, 142 & 236.
92.
ibid, pp 219 & 299.
93.
ibid, pp 296- 297.
94.
Merton, Robert K., op. cit., pp 80-83.
95.
Gouldner, A. W., Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy, Glencoe I11.:, 1954,
The Free Press.
73
A
Sociological
References
96.
Zimmerman, D. H., The Practicalities of Rule Use, 1971, Douglas, pp 20-25.
97.
Farazmand, Ali.(Ed.), op. cit., pp 2-4.
98.
Osborne, David. & Gaebler, Ted., Reinventing Government, New York,
1993, Plume publishers.
99.
Chitkara, M.G., op. cit., pp 13- 14.
100.
Mandal, U.C., Bureaucracy - Growth and Development, New Delhi, 1997,
Sarup & Sons, p 18.
101.
Pande, Basudev., Indian Bureaucracy : An Inside Story, New Delhi,1978, pp
5-6.
102.
Chitkara, M.G., op.cit., pp 14- 15.
103.
ibid, p 141.
104.
Ahmad, Furqan., op. cit., , p 21.
105.
D’Souza, J.B., Uncivil Servants, November 8, 1992, The Sunday Times, p 1.
106.
Chitkara, M.G., op. cit., p 21.
107.
Farazmund, Ali. (Ed.), op. cit., p 2.
108.
Benk, Fredrit. T., Modernization by Design, New York, 1969, p 189.
109.
Palombara, J.La.(Ed.), An overview, in Bureaucracy and Political
Development, New Jersey, 1963, Princeton University Press, pp 4-5.
110.
Marx, F.M., op. cit., pp 62-95.
111.
Jackson, P.M., op. cit., p 8.
74