bureaucracy
TRANSCRIPT
Bureaucracy is "a body of non elective government officials" and/or "an administrative policy-making group."[1] Historically, bureaucracy referred to government administration managed by departments staffed with nonelected officials.[2] In modern parlance, bureaucracy refers to the administrative system governing any large institution
The term "bureaucracy" is French in origin, and combines the French word bureau – desk or office – with the Greek word κράτοςkratos – rule or political power.[17] It was coined sometime in the mid-1700s by the French economist Jacques Claude Marie Vincent de Gournay,[citation needed] and was a satirical pejorative from the outset.[original research?] Gournay never wrote the term down, but was later quoted at length in a letter from a contemporary:
bureaucracy , the administrative structure of any largeorganization, public or private. Ideally bureaucracy ischaracterized by hierarchical authority relations, defined spheresof competence subject to impersonal rules, recruitment bycompetence, and fixed salaries. Its goal is to be rational, efficient,and professional. Max Weber, the most important student ofbureaucracy, described it as technically superior to all other formsof organization and hence indispensable to large, complexenterprises. However, because of t
he shortcomings that have inpractice afflicted large administrative structures, the termsbureaucracy and bureaucrat in popular usage usually carry asuggestion of disapproval and imply incompetence, a narrowoutlook, duplication of effort, and application of a rigid rulewithout due consideration of specific cases. Bureaucracy existedin imperial Rome and China and in the national monarchies, but inmodern states complex industrial and social legislation has calledforth a vast growth of administrative functions of government.The power of permanent and nonelective officials to apply andeven initiate measures of control over national administration andeconomy has made the bureaucracy central to the life of thestate; critics object that it is largely impervious to control by thepeople or their elected representatives. The institution of theombudsman has been one means adopted in an attempt to remedythis situation. Others has been collective decision making andorganizational structures that emphasize minimize hierarchies anddecentralize the power to make decisions. Administrativebureaucracies in private organizations and corporations have alsogrown rapidly, as has criticism of unresponsive bureaucracies ineducation, health care, insurance, labor unions, and other areas.. More recent theories havestressed the role of managerial cliques, occupational interestgroups, or individual power-seekers in creating politicizedorganizations characterized by internal conflict.
DefinitionBureaucracy is a concept in sociology and political science referring to the way that the administrative execution andenforcement of legal rules are socially organized. Four structuralconcepts are central to any definition of bureaucracy:1. a well-defined division of administrative labor among person
sand offices,2. a personnel system with consistent patterns of recruitmentan
d stable linear careers,3. a hierarchy among offices, such that the authority andstatus
are differentially distributed among actors, and4. formal and informal networks that connect organizationalacto
rs to one another through flows of information andpatterns of cooperation.
Examples of everyday bureaucracies include governments, armed forces, corporations, hospitals, courts, ministries and schools.
Origins:While the concept as such exist at least from the early forms ofnationhood in ancient times, the word "bureaucracy" itself stemsfrom the word "bureau", used from the early 18th century inWestern Europe not just to refer to a writing desk, but to anoffice, i.e., a workplace, where officials worked. The originalFrench meaning of the word bureau was the baize used to coverdesks. The term bureaucracy came into use shortly before theFrench Revolution of 1789, and from there rapidly spread to othercountries. The Greek suffix - kratia or kratos - means "power" or"rule".In a letter of July 1, 1790, the German Baron von Grimm declared:"We are obsessed by the idea of regulation, and our Masters ofRequests refuse to understand that there is an infinity of things ina great state with which a government should not concern itself."Jean Claude Marie Vincent de Gournay sometimes used to say,"We have an illness in France which bids fair to play havoc withus; this illness is called bureaumania ." Sometimes he used torefer to a fourth or fifth form of government under the heading of"bureaucracy".In another letter of July 15, 1765 Baron Grimm wrote also, "Thereal spirit of the laws in France is that bureaucracy of which thelate Monsieur de Gournay used to complain so greatly; here theoffices, clerks, secretaries, inspectors and intendants are notappointed to benefit the public interest, indeed the public interestappears to have been established so that offices might exist.This quote refers to a traditional controversy about bureaucracy,namely the perversion of means and ends so that means becomeends in themselves, and the greater good is lost sight of; as acorollary, the substitution of sectional interests for the general interest. The suggestion here is that, left uncontrolled, thebureaucracy will become increasingly self-serving and corrupt,rather than serving society.
Characteristics of Bureaucracy:
Bureaucracy refers to the management of large organizations characterized by hierarchy, fixed rules, impersonal relationships, rigid adherence to procedures, and a highly specialized division of labor.
Weber suggests the characteristics of bureaucracy as following :
1. There is the principle of fixed official jurisdictional areas,which are generally ordered by rules, that is, by laws or administrative regulations.2. The principles of office hierarchy and of levels of grade authority mean a firmly ordered system of super and subordinationin which there is a supervision of the lower offices by the higher ones.3. The management of modern offices is based upon written documents (“the files”), which are preserved in their original ordraught form.4. Office management, at least all specialized office management – and such management is distinctly modern – usually presupposes thorough and expert training.5. When the office is fully developed, official activity demands the full working capacity of the official, irrespective of the fact that his obligatory time in the bureau may be firmly delimited.6- The management of the office follows general rules which are more or less stable, more or less exhaustive, and which can be learned.“Position of the official”Weber asserts that office holding is a “vocation“. The position of the official is in the nature of a duty. Major characteristic of Weberian Bureaucracy is devoted to impersonal and functional purposes. Entrance into an office is considered an acceptance of a specific obligation of faithful management in return for a secure existence. This means tenure ship and job security.Weber suggested that the personal position of the official is patterned in the following way:
1. Whether official is in a private office or a public bureau, the modern official always strives and usually enjoys a distinct social esteem as compared with the governed. His social position is guaranteed by the prescriptive rules of rank order and, for the political official, by special definitions of the criminal code against “insults of the officials” and “contempt” of state and church authorities.
2. The pure type of bureaucratic official is appointed by a superior authority. An official elected by the governed is not a purely bureaucratic figure. In principle, an official who is so elected has an autonomous position opposite the super ordinate official. The elected official does not derive his position “fromabove” but “from below”. The official who is not elected but appointed by a chief normally functions more exactly, from a technical point of view, because, all other circumstances being equal, it is more likely that purely functional points of consideration and qualities will determine his selection and career.3. Normally, the position of the official is held for life, at least in public bureaucracies; As a factual rule, tenure for life is presupposed, even where the giving of notice or periodic reappointment occurs.4. The official receives the regular pecuniary compensation of a normally fixed salary and the old age security provided by a pension. The salary is not measured like a wage in terms of work done, but according to “status”, that is, according to the kind of function (the “rank“) and, in addition, possibly, according to the length of service.5. The official is set for a “career” within the hierarchical order of the public service. He moves from the lower, less important, and lower paid to the higher positions.
Max Weber’s theory of Bureaucracy:
Max Weber, born in 1864, in Prussia, is a German sociologist. He suggested that Protestantism was one of the major “elective affinities” associated with the rise of capitalism, bureaucracy and the rational-legal nation-state in his book named “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism”. He is well known for his famous theory of bureaucracy.
Weber noted six major principles.
1. A formal hierarchical structure
Each level controls the level below and is controlled by the level above. A formal hierarchy is the basis of central planning and centralized decision making.
2. Management by rules
Controlling by rules allows decisions made at high levels to be executed consistently by all lower levels.
3. Organization by functional specialty
Work is to be done by specialists, and people are organized into units based on the type of work they do or skills they have.
4. An "up-focused" or "in-focused" mission
If the mission is described as "up-focused," then the organization's purpose is to serve the stockholders, the board, or whatever agency empowered it. If the mission is to serve the organization itself, and those within it, e.g., to produce high profits, to gain market share, or to produce a cash stream, then the mission is described as "in-focused."
5. Purposely impersonal
The idea is to treat all employees equally and customers equally,and not be influenced by individual differences.
6. Employment based on technical qualifications
(There may also be protection from arbitrary dismissal.)
The bureaucratic form, according to Parkinson, has another attribute.
7. Predisposition to grow in staff "above the line."
Weber failed to notice this, but C. Northcote Parkinson found it so common that he made it the basis of his humorous "Parkinson's law." Parkinson demonstrated that the management and professionalstaff tends to grow at predictable rates, almost without regard to what the line organization is doing.
The bureaucratic form is so common that most people accept it as the normal way of organizing almost any endeavor. People in bureaucratic organizations generally blame the ugly side effects of bureaucracy on management, or the founders, or the owners, without awareness that the real cause is the organizing form.
Criticism for Max Weber’s Bureaucracy:
Beginning with Max Weber, bureaucracies have been regarded as mechanisms that
rationalize authority and decision-making in society. Yet subsequent theorists have
questioned the rationality of bureaucracies. Which features of modern-day public
bureaucracies are rational? Which are not? Buttress your argumentwith citations
from organization and/or public administration theories.
Introduction:
Max Weber’s work about bureaucracy, translated into English in
1946, was one of the major contributions that has influenced the
literature of public administration. However, Van Riper (1997)
argues that the work of Weber on bureaucracy has no influence on
American PA until the 1950’s. The word bureaucracy is derived
from two words; “bureau” and “Kratos.” While the word “bureau”
refers to the office the Greek suffix “kratia or kratos” means power
or rule. Thus we use the word “bureaucracy” to refer to the power
of the office (Hummel, 1998, 307). “Bureaucracy” is rule
conducted from a desk or office, i.e. by the preparation and
dispatch of written documents and electronic ones. Bureaucracy is
borrowed by the field of public administration (PA) from the
field of sociology. It was borrowed by PA in much a similar way
that practices of business were borrowed from the field of
business administration and economics. Weber (1946) presents
bureaucracy as both a scientific and generic model that can work
in both the public and private sectors (Rainey, 1996). For
example, Weber asserts that:
This belief in science was evident in Max Weber’s rational-legal
authority, which became the defining feature of organizational
structures, especially government bureaucracies, to this day. It
steered organizational setups to rational based considerations,
which are in line with the science of administration idea. In
other words, Weber’s bureaucracy consists of the traditional way
of thinking in public administration that relied on the same
“ingredients” to reform public administration based on the
science of administration (Thompson, 2005).
Rationality of Weber’s Bureaucracy:
Weber defines bureaucracy as “the means of carrying community
action over into rationally ordered social action… an instrument
for socializing relations of power, bureaucracy has been and is a
power instrument of the first order.” Some scholars (Friedrich,
1940; Finer, 1941; Simon, 1947; Shafritz and Hyde,1997; and
Marshall in Ventriss, 2000) argue that public administration is a
field of control; control of public administrators, control of
people, control of inputs, and control of outputs. All these
kinds of controls seek to achieve one main goal which is to meet
the people’s needs and expectations in an efficient way.
According to Weber (1946), bureaucracy “is, from a purely
technical point of view, capable of attaining the highest degree
of efficiency and is in this sense formally that most rational
known means of carrying out imperative control over human beings”
(337).
Weber argues that human civilization evolved from primitive and
mystical to the rational and complex stages and relationships.
Weber believes that societies move from the primitive stage to
theoretical and technical ones. According to Weber, the evolution
of societies is facilitated by three types of authority that he
identifies as traditional, charismatic and legal-rational
authority (Fry, 1989). It is the legal-rational type of authority
that constitutes the basis of Weber’s concept of bureaucracy and
the foundation of modern civilization as it is premised on “a
belief in the legitimacy of the pattern of normative rules and
the rights of those elevated to authority under such rules to
issue commands” (Stillman, 2000, 51).
Since Weber argues that bureaucracy grows because of society’s
needs of provision of education, health, social services,
collecting taxes, and others, and therefore work has to be
divided and specialized to achieve the things desired by the
society. In this vein, Stillman (2000) quotes Weber stating that
“[t]he proper soil for bureaucratization of administration has
always been the development of administrative tasks” (Stillman,
2000, 52). Key features of the ideal type of bureaucracy that
Weber presents are division of labor, hierarchal order, written
documents, well-trained staff and experts, full working capacity
of the officials, and application of impersonal rules (Hummel,
1998, 307). However, these ingredients of bureaucracy may not,
always, help organizations to reach its ideal work or the most
efficient performance. Michel Crozier (1964) argues that some of
the bureaucratic characteristics including the impersonal rules,
hierarchy, and centralization of decision-making might lead to
the inability of the organization to correct or change its
behavior by learning from its previous mistakes while serving the
society.
In fact, work within bureaucracy has to be divided rationally
into units that can be undertaken by individuals or groups of
individuals in a diligent manner. The hierarchical order is
necessary for separating superiors from subordinates whereas
impersonal rules are meant to ensure that bureaucrats are
confined to prescribed patterns of conduct or performance imposed
by legal rules. The rules are meant to facilitate a systematic
control of subordinates by their superiors, “thus limiting the
opportunities for arbitrariness and personal favoritism”
(Stillman, 2000, 52). The operations of the bureaucracy “exclude
irrational feelings and sentiments in favor of the detached,
professional expert” (Fry, 1998, 33). Therefore, one may deduce
from the foregoing that Weber believes that organizational goals
can be attained if there is a science of administration which
separates facts from values.
Bureaucracy, Capitalism, & Democracy:
Weber generally implies that bureaucracy exists everywhere in a
capitalistic society. Weber’s conceptualizations of capitalism
and bureaucracy are “mutually supportive structures” (Fry, 1998,
33). Capitalism and bureaucracy require the same impersonal type
of communication, one based on transactions that require legal
and ethical behavior in order to perform successfully.
On the other hand, bureaucracy and democracy have a different
type of relationship. It is that relationship which helps form
the core of the intellectual response by the field of public
administration to the integration of many Weber’s organization
theory tenets. It is a relationship that is built upon
influential statements by Weber and future analyses of his
efforts on the subject by scholars in the realm of PA.
Bureaucracy is the means for achieving rationally ordered social
action. The question for public administrators is what happens if
bureaucracy exceeds its bounds. First, let me offer Weber’s
response to that question, which could be found in his thoughts
on democracy. Specifically, democracy of a special type is one
where leaders are chosen to lead. On democracy, Weber writes:
Irrationalities/Limitations of Bureaucracy:
Robert Merton (1952) criticizes Weber’s bureaucracy by observing
that the bureaucratic features, which Weber believes in enhancing
rationality and efficiency, might actually be associated with
irrationality and inefficiency. Merton concludes that bureaucracy
contains the seeds of its own destruction. This part discusses
the bureaucratic model of Max Weber from a critical point of
view. It focuses on four main irrational limitations that
bureaucracy has in terms of its ideal type, its negligence of
informal organization, and its dehumanization as well as its
tense relationship with democracy. In particular, Weber’s
bureaucracy does not consider the important role of the informal
relationships that exist in any human organizations. In addition,
many in public administration argue that the reality of
bureaucratic discretion is a threat to democratic norms and
practices that govern and rule the American community.
Regarding the first limitation and through examining Weber’s
bureaucracy carefully, Weber presents to us an idealistic and
platonic model of bureaucracy that can govern and run the public
system in any place and at any time. Weber (1946) uses
expressions like: “fully developed,” “the pure type,” “most
highly developed” or “purely objective considerations” which
indicate that his model of bureaucracy is perfect and complete
and it always functions effectively and efficiently. Having
problems in the public performance and its inability to meet the
whole citizens’ social needs and political rights in any country
negates the claim that the bureaucratic model is an idealistic
and platonic system. Bureaucracy of Weber has not demonstrated
that it is “fully developed” structure under the regular
conditions in reality. Peter Blau and Marshall Meyer (1987) argue
that “since perfect bureaucratization is never fully realized, no
existing organization precisely fits the ‘ideal type’… [which]
does not provide understanding of concrete bureaucratic
structure” (25). In other words, it does not seem right for
organizations to follow an ideal guide which may never be reached
or may not work efficiently when it is applied.
The role of Bureaucracy in the administration of Bangladesh:
When we study the role of bureaucracy in the Third Worldcountries, we find a number of cases where Max Weber’s legal-rational bureaucratic organization no longer remains ‘ideal’,rather it has been replaced by its impure type dictated by thepolitics in most of these countries. In other words, theexistence of a non-Weberian model of bureaucracy may be easilytraced in most of the Third World countries. If Lord Curzon(viceroy in British India, 1899-1905) could arrogantly assert
that ‘administration and exploitation go hand-in-hand’, aconscientious student of development administration may assertwith equal force that ‘maladministration and under-development gohand-in-hand’. The bureaucrats have a kind of obsession to retainand perpetuate their hold over the levers of power in complicitywith the breed of new political leaders intent on convertingstate machinery into an instrument of self-interest. The trendsof traditionalism, tribalism, communalism, parochialism,racialism, and so forth, sustained and enforced by theconsiderations of sectional interests, are sought to beharmonized with the ideology of socialism that may mean any thingto anyone suiting his or her political objectives. The situationis further complicated by the emergence of fascism or some kindof authoritarianism in the form of military rule in many of theThird World countries. The multinational corporations of theFirst World play their own part in exploiting these countries.Consequently, neo-colonialism sets its foot in the region thatwarrants serious investigations in the light of '‘dependencytheory’. It may also be noted that the salient features of ‘civilservice elitism’ and ‘loyalty to the colonial masters’ have beenlaced with the evils of disinterestedness, desensitization,maladjustment, over red-tapism, political paternalism, bossismand sycophancy. The essential fact stands out that bureaucracy,once admired as the ‘steel frame of administration’, has lost itspast professional exuberance in most of the Third World countriesand its members have forgotten their duty to encourageinnovation, initiative and identification with the nationalobjectives in every agency of public administration. In certainextreme situations, one may trace the fact of a lumpenbureaucratic system in which the bureaucrats inflate the economywhere they ought to deflate and deflate where they ought toinflate. The bureaucracy remains obsessed with factors likestatus, ranks and emoluments; it is too much addicted to thehabits of personal luxury and indolence.
All this is very well reflected in developments that have takenplace in Bangladesh since its independence in 1971. This nationhas witnessed so far several digressions from the democraticpath. Thus, we have seen the pendulum swinging from democracy toauthoritarianism and then to democratic-authoritarianism. Whilethe parties and politicians faltered, often deliberately, andpaid heavily for their inanities, the bureaucracy has always beenthe beneficiary and made capital of politicians’ maladroitmanagement. The bureaucracy has become politically polarized andpartisan influences have torn it asunder. Yet, as a social group,like other Third World bureaucracies, it has not lost its sub-system autonomy in the governmental framework, but internaldivisions and factional politics have greatly diminished itsstrength. When attempts are made to place the bureaucracy underthe microscope or its power and status is threatened by reforminitiatives, internal differences are compromised to encounterexternal dangers. Indeed, there has been a gradual ascendancy ofthe bureaucracy in Bangladesh as parties and politicians fightamong themselves on trivial issues and fail to consolidatedemocracy.
It covers different phases of Bangladesh’s political developmentwith the spotlight on the bureaucracy and the role it plays inits polity. It also analyzes the dynamics of relationships of thebureaucracy with the political structures as well as among itsvarious occupational groups. In fact, this book represents to bea compilation volume of twelve research papers on Bangladeshpublic administration and bureaucracy published by the authorsjointly or individually in internationally reputed journals andedited books during the period from 1984 to 2001
However, the study does have some definite strengths as pointedout earlier. It makes a valuable contribution to existingknowledge about Bangladesh public administration and bureaucracyin their constitutional, structural and functional contexts. For
someone wanting to gather insightful knowledge on the bureaucracyin Bangladesh, it is indeed a valuable publication available nowat the leading bookstores in Dhaka. The academics andpractitioners of public administration in particular will findthe book an enlightening reading – to reflect upon the facts andpitfalls and then to envision precisely the future role of thebureaucracy for sustainable democracy, irrespective of thegovernmental transitions. It may also be useful as a text intraining and public administration courses where an emphasis uponthe structural arrangements and legal systems is required.
The present state of bureaucracy in Bangladesh:
Not so long ago, the government took a decision to appoint experts at the top level of the civil bureaucracy in a move to bring more dynamism in the administration. It also planned to make a law providing for such appointments. A task force will be given responsibility to draft the proposed law that may be titledas 'Gono Karmochari Ain'.According to reports, the public administration ministry and the prime minister's public administration affairs adviser will discuss with all concerned in the bureaucracy and put the proposed law on official website to elicit public opinion on it. After reviewing public opinion, the proposed law will be sent to a secretary-level committee, and then to the Prime Minister for approval. If the Prime Minister gives the go-ahead, it will be placed before the cabinet, and finally, in parliament to make it a law. When enacted, the new law would facilitate use of expertise of local experts in different ministries and divisions,infusing dynamism in the civil administration, claims the government.However, the move appears to have created dissatisfaction among senior officials in the administration. It would greatly limit their scope of going to top positions, they fear. Some of the officials also said this move would encourage politicization of the bureaucracy since the 'experts' to be appointed in top positions would be picked up on political consideration.
The government maintains that the move to appoint experts was based on the needs of time. Many countries engage their experts in government work but this practice has been absent in Bangladesh. The government ruled out politicization of the appointment of experts in bureaucracy, saying those who want to help the government with their expertise would be considered for appointment, and not those who would sabotage the government step.Quite a big number of consultants have been appointed from home and abroad in many sectors of the government at a huge cost. If local experts are engaged, the country can gradually reduce dependence on overseas consultants. But to do so, it needs to give experts the authority, and for this the government is planning to appoint them as secretary.The Prime Minister expressed her concern many a times over the fact that the ministries are not performing duties with 'requiredspeed' and as a result, the government is facing problems in providing required services to the people. She wondered whether such delay was willful or due to inexperience. Like the Prime Minister, everybody wants to know why delays occur at every stageof implementation of any work or project activities. It was witnessed that in most of the ministries, files are piled up and move at a snail's pace. Allegations have it that briberies play avital role in getting file works done. In this context, the PrimeMinister gave a veiled warning. She asked the secretaries of all ministries to pay more attention to the activities of the subordinate officials and motivate them to work properly. She also told them to take legal and punitive actions if anyone makesdelays or creates obstacles in implementing scheduled works.In Bangladesh, development activities are being seriously hampered due to slow implementation of project works. Thousands of project proposals remain in cold storage of the concerned ministries for months after months. A significant amount of ADP (annual development programme) fund remains unutilized due to inefficient handling by the civil administration every year. The pace of utilization of foreign aid is also slow for the same reason. Staggering amount of foreign assistance could not be utilized by the concerned ministries. These are all because of
the so-called inefficiency of the bureaucracy. In fact, country'sproblem is non-utilization of the foreign aid, not its disbursement. For years, foreign aid remains in the pipeline and the country has never seen its full utilization. This is very unfortunate for a developing country like Bangladesh.In the past, the bureaucracy in the country badly suffered due topoliticization of the administration. There were mass promotions and transfers of the civil servants in the past, entirely on political considerations. A large number of officers, having requisite qualifications, were deprived of due promotions, which created a commotion in the civil administration.Bureaucracy has, indeed, a sweeping dominance in the state administration of Bangladesh. The neutrality of the bureaucracy is critically threatened because of undue influence by the political leaders. Such situation contributes to the unfairness and poor distribution of public service, which tends to boost thepractices of corruption, collusion and nepotism.There are three kinds of problems with Bangladesh's bureaucracy. First, as per Transparency International (TI) reports, Bangladeshis among the most corrupt countries in the world. The performanceof the bureaucracy in Bangladesh is ranked the world's worst, along with those of India and Vietnam. Second, there are problemswith the overlapping structure of bureaucracy, vague divisions between government functions and citizen obligations, and unclearpolitical process of policy formulation. Third, there are problems with human resources quality.Bangladesh inherited the system of bureaucracy from the British that ruled Indian subcontinent for over 200 years. The UK government has reformed the bureaucracy by completely transforming its civil service, making it more accountable to ordinary citizens. Some other countries went for drastic reform of their civil administration. Since independence, Bangladesh hashad at least 18 proposals for reform in the bureaucracy. Unfortunately, none of these proposals was materialized.Successive governments, through politicization of the bureaucracy, has created a largely dysfunctional, demoralized workforce. Many efficient officers are languishing as officers on
special duties (OSDs), sitting at home and drawing their salariesonly. The government has forgotten the fact that a demoralized workforce cannot deliver -- whatever carrots might be offered to them.Indeed, nobody should deny the role of bureaucracy in good governance of the country. Good governance in Bangladesh largely depends on the efficiency of the civil service to deliver. How the civil servants respond to the problems of the people forms the basis of the pro-people administration. The success of democracy and implementation of development programmes largely depend on the public servants and bureaucratic organizations engaged in building the future of the country. As such, the administrative structure as well as organization needs to be efficient, effective, dynamic, innovative and forward-looking in character.If the government's latest decision to appoint experts at the helm of the administration is implemented, it is to be seen how the system works. Will the subordinate officials of the bureaucracy cooperate with the 'expert' secretary? Or, will therebe another mess-up in the administration, leading to a catastrophic failure of the bureaucracy?
Reference:
1.http://www.studymode.com/subjects/criticism-of-max-weber-theory-of-bureaucracy-page1.html
2.http://ozgurzan.com/management/management-theories/bureaucracy-max-weber/
3. http://www.reference.com/browse/bureaucracy
4.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureaucracy
5.Dr. Wasim Al-Habil
College of Commerce
The Islamic University of Gaza
6.http://www.asiaticsociety.org.bd/journals/vol%2052/book%20reviewThe%20Bureaucratic%20Ascendancy.html