SUMMARY OVERVIEW

As the scope of government activity has grown during the twentieth century, so has the bureaucracy. The way that bureaucracy is organized affects its ability to carry out its tasks.

Americans tend to be critics of the federal bureaucracy. Many people believe that it has grown too big and too intrusive. In looking at the historical development of the bureaucracy, we can identify important reasons for its growth. When we ask if the bureaucracy can be cut down, we once again confront the tension between majoritarianism and pluralism. Although most Americans want a smaller federal government, different segments of the population work hard to protect the programs and agencies that they value.

The federal bureaucracy is divided into several different types of organizations: departments, independent agencies, and government corporations. The people who staff them are generally hired under the requirements of the civil service¾they are hired on the basis of merit, and cannot be fired for political reasons. This means that the president does not have as much control over the workings of the bureaucracy as he might like.

Bureaucracies are political because they make policy decisions. Under the administrative discretion given them by Congress, they have the authority to make policy, usually through rule making. These decisions are not made in a scientific or purely rational way. Rather, they are subject to the pulls and pushes of the political system.

Bureaucrats must implement policies¾put the ideas on paper into action. This is difficult for many reasons: vague directives from Congress means it isn’t clear what should be done; administrative limitations and lack of discretion on the front lines can make it hard to make a good idea work.

It seems easier to catalog the failings of bureaucracy than to find cures for them. One wave of reform efforts focused on deregulation as a means to reduce the size of government while reforming the bureaucracy by diminishing its role over the marketplace. Other approaches have required bureaucrats to set and meet performance standards, and have encouraged bureaucrats to compete with private business. All these approaches raise important questions. Who are an agency’s “customers” in a pluralistic system where there are so many different types of individuals and groups involved? Who should bear the brunt of the risks that are associated with deregulation? And what happens when we begin to value what can be done over what needs to be done?