bureaucracy and development administration pdf

Bureaucracy And Development Administration Pdf

File Name: bureaucracy and development administration .zip
Size: 2766Kb
Published: 02.06.2021

Skip to search form Skip to main content You are currently offline. Some features of the site may not work correctly. The relationship between Public Administration and National Development has lost its vigour, dynamism and interest because of criticisms that has trailed the role of the public bureaucracy in rural development in Nigeria.

Bureaucracy as an organization is expected to play a pivotal role, in process of development. The concept of Development Administration had originated in U. With their emphasis on rules and regulations, division of labour, hierarchy, role specialists, rationality, impersonally and neutrality, bureaucracy was expected to ensure smooth process of development. In fact, bureaucracy played a key role in stability standard of integrity and professional competence. Bureaucracy supported industrialized developed nations to achieve their objectives.

Bureaucracy and Development Administration

Bureaucracy , specific form of organization defined by complexity, division of labour, permanence, professional management, hierarchical coordination and control, strict chain of command, and legal authority.

It is distinguished from informal and collegial organizations. In its ideal form, bureaucracy is impersonal and rational and based on rules rather than ties of kinship, friendship, or patrimonial or charismatic authority. Bureaucratic organization can be found in both public and private institutions.

The foremost theorist of bureaucracy is the German sociologist Max Weber — , who described the ideal characteristics of bureaucracies and offered an explanation for the historical emergence of bureaucratic institutions. According to Weber, the defining features of bureaucracy sharply distinguish it from other types of organization based on nonlegal forms of authority.

Weber observed that the advantage of bureaucracy was that it was the most technically proficient form of organization, possessing specialized expertise, certainty, continuity , and unity. Instrumental organizations e. Contemporary stereotypes of bureaucracy tend to portray it as unresponsive, lethargic , undemocratic, and incompetent. In the pure form of bureaucratic organization universalized rules and procedures would dominate, rendering personal status or connections irrelevant.

In this form, bureaucracy is the epitome of universalized standards under which similar cases are treated similarly as codified by law and rules, and under which the individual tastes and discretion of the administrator are constrained by due process rules.

Despite the widespread derogatory stereotypes of bureaucracy, a system of government grounded in law requires bureaucracy to function. Nevertheless, the words bureaucracy and bureaucrat are typically thought of and used pejoratively. They convey images of red tape, excessive rules and regulations, unimaginativeness, a lack of individual discretion, central control, and an absence of accountability.

Far from being conceived as proficient, popular contemporary portrayals often paint bureaucracies as inefficient and lacking in adaptability. Because the characteristics that define the organizational advantages of bureaucracy also contain within them the possibilities of organizational dysfunction, both the flattering and unflattering depictions of bureaucracy can be accurate.

Thus, the characteristics that make bureaucracies proficient paradoxically also may produce organizational pathologies. Jurisdictional competency is a key element of bureaucratic organization, which is broken into units with defined responsibilities. Fundamentally, jurisdictional competency refers to bureaucratic specialization, with all elements of a bureaucracy possessing a defined role. The responsibilities of individuals broaden with movement upward through an organizational hierarchy.

The organizational division of labour enables units and individuals within an organization to master details and skills and to turn the novel into the routine. This feature of bureaucracy also can lead organizational units to shirk responsibility by allowing them to define a problem as belonging to some other unit and thereby leave the issue unattended.

Alternatively, every unit within an organization is apt to put a face on a problem congenial mainly to its own interests, skills, and technologies. Bureaucracies have clear lines of command and control. Bureaucratic authority is organized hierarchically, with responsibility taken at the top and delegated with decreasing discretion below.

Because of the risk of organizational parochialism produced by limited and specific jurisdictional competencies , the capacity to coordinate and control the multiplicity of units is essential.

Authority is the glue that holds together diversity and prevents units from exercising unchecked discretion. Yet, few features of bureaucratic life have received so much adverse attention as the role of hierarchical authority as a means for achieving organizational command and control. Popular criticisms emphasize that hierarchical organization strangles creative impulses and injects hyper-cautious modes of behaviour based on expectations of what superiors may desire. Command and control, which are necessary to coordinate the disparate elements of bureaucratic organization, provide for increasing responsibility upward, delegation, and decreasing discretion downward.

Continuity is another key element of bureaucratic organization. Rational-legal authority necessitates uniform rules and procedures for written documents and official behaviour. The ability to utilize standard operating procedures makes organizations more efficient by decreasing the costs attached to any given transaction. Organizational files record procedures, antecedent behaviour, and personnel records.

They also allow an organization to be continuous and, thus, independent of any specific leadership. Without its records, it would be impossible to maintain transactions grounded in legality.

Yet continuity also has a dysfunctional side, leading organizations to behave predictably and conservatively or, worse perhaps, merely reflexively. Continuity also may lead a bureaucracy to repeat regularly activities that may be inaccurate and whose inaccuracies thereby cumulate.

Professionalization of management , another basic element of bureaucracy, requires a full-time corps of officials whose attention is devoted exclusively to its managerial responsibilities. In government, professionalization is vested in the corps of civil servants whose positions have generally been obtained through the passage of tests based upon merit.

The civil service is sometimes considered a permanent government, distinct from the transient politicians who serve only for a limited time and at the pleasure of the electorate in democratic political systems. In businesses and in other nongovernmental bureaucratic organizations, there is also a professional cadre of managers. Professionalization increases expertise and continuity within the organization.

Even when organizations are temporarily leaderless or experience turmoil in their top leadership positions, the professional cadre helps to maintain an organizational equilibrium. The virtues of professionalization are clear: without a professional corps, organizations would suffer from crises induced by incompetency. Professionalization thus contributes to the superior technical proficiency that Weber claimed was the hallmark of bureaucratic organization.

Despite its virtues, professionalization also carries potential risks. Often the professional corps of managerial experts itself becomes a covert source of power because it has superior knowledge compared with those who are its nominal but temporary superiors. By virtue of greater experience, mastery of detail, and organizational and substantive knowledge, professional bureaucrats may exercise strong influence over decisions made by their leaders. The existence of powerful bureaucrats raises issues of accountability and responsibility, particularly in democratic systems; bureaucrats are supposedly the agents of their leaders, but their superior knowledge of detail can place them in a position of indispensability.

In addition, although a permanent corps of officials brings expertise and mastery of detail to decision making , it also deepens the innate conservatism of a bureaucracy. The permanent corps is usually skeptical of novelty because the essence of bureaucratic organization is to turn past novelties into present routines. Professional bureaucrats, be they in the civil or private sector, also tend to favour the organizational status quo because their investments e. Consequently, the more professionalized the cadre becomes, the more likely it is to resist the intrusion of external forces.

Rules are the lifeblood of bureaucratic organization, providing a rational and continuous basis for procedures and operations. Bureaucratic decisions and—above all—procedures are grounded in codified rules and precedents. Although most people dislike rules that inhibit them, the existence of rules is characteristic of legal-rational authority, ensuring that decisions are not arbitrary, that standardized procedures are not readily circumvented , and that order is maintained.

Rules are the essence of bureaucracy but are also the bane of leaders who want to get things done their way instantly. Rules restrain arbitrary behaviour, but they also can provide formidable roadblocks to achievement.

The accumulation of rules sometimes leads to the development of inconsistencies, and the procedures required to change any element of the status quo may become extraordinarily onerous as a result of the rule-driven character of bureaucracy. One perspective holds that the strict adherence to rules restricts the ability of a bureaucracy to adapt to new circumstances.

By contrast, markets , which can operate with very few rules, force rapid adaptation to changing circumstances. Yet, most major business organizations are arranged in bureaucratic form because hierarchy and delegated responsibility reduce the transaction costs of making decisions.

Thus, the most basic elements of pure bureaucratic organization are its emphasis on procedural regularity, a hierarchical system of accountability and responsibility, specialization of function, continuity, a legal-rational basis, and fundamental conservatism.

The emergence of capitalism and the emphasis on standard currency transactions over and above barter systems created the need for bureaucratic forms of organization in both the private and public sectors.

However, the critical elements of the bureaucratic form of organization also can conflict with one another and are often at the base of criticisms that regard bureaucracies as dysfunctional. In sum, what makes bureaucracy work also may work against it. Bureaucracy Article Media Additional Info. Article Contents. Table Of Contents. While every effort has been made to follow citation style rules, there may be some discrepancies. Please refer to the appropriate style manual or other sources if you have any questions.

Facebook Twitter. Give Feedback External Websites. Let us know if you have suggestions to improve this article requires login. External Websites. Indianetzone - Indian Bureaucracy Investopedia - Bureaucracy.

Articles from Britannica Encyclopedias for elementary and high school students. See Article History. Characteristics and paradoxes of bureaucracy The foremost theorist of bureaucracy is the German sociologist Max Weber — , who described the ideal characteristics of bureaucracies and offered an explanation for the historical emergence of bureaucratic institutions.

Get a Britannica Premium subscription and gain access to exclusive content. Subscribe Now. Load Next Page.

Publications/Books

The traditional approach towards administration has been limited in its scope and premise, the core of which was strict adherence to laid down rules and hierarchy. In essence it has limited the role administration to that of a fire fighter or overseer of law and order in the comfort of laid down principals. While, nothing is wrong in this approach, if society is utopian but, in a more practical sense it causes problems. Since, bureaucracy is that arm of government which is responsible for executing plans and allocating resources at the grassroots, it is imperative that they take some risks and be innovative in approach, especially more so when the nation is a developing one. Development Administration is about projects, programs, policies and ideas which are focused at development of a nation, with the point of view of socio-economic and socio-political development of society in general, carried out by talented and skilled bureaucrats. The concept of Development Administration should be understood using two concepts Administration of Development and administrative Development. Administration of Development: Resources are scarce, material or human thus the need to make optimum utilization of available resources and making new means for development gathers importance.

Bureaucracy , specific form of organization defined by complexity, division of labour, permanence, professional management, hierarchical coordination and control, strict chain of command, and legal authority. It is distinguished from informal and collegial organizations. In its ideal form, bureaucracy is impersonal and rational and based on rules rather than ties of kinship, friendship, or patrimonial or charismatic authority. Bureaucratic organization can be found in both public and private institutions. The foremost theorist of bureaucracy is the German sociologist Max Weber — , who described the ideal characteristics of bureaucracies and offered an explanation for the historical emergence of bureaucratic institutions.

The word bureaucracy is derived from the French word bureaucratic which is again derived from bureau. The dictionary meaning of bureaucracy is a system of government in which most decisions are taken by state officials rather than by elected representatives. This definition of bureaucracy is somewhat exaggerated because in most of the modern states the representatives take majority decisions and top government officials act as advisers to the representatives. The definition given by Hague, Harrop and Breslin appears to be more relevant. In another definition the bureaucracy has been termed as a government run or managed by permanent officers, In other words, it can be said that bureaucracy is that type of government or administration which is primarily manned by some permanent officers recruited by a body which acts independently. Though this definition does not embrace all aspects, it conveys the real situation.


To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the author. Request full-text PDF.


Bureaucracy

During recent history of mankind the growth of state, state power, and consequently of bureaucracy' has aroused both the curiosity of scholars as also their apprehensions. Does the expansion of the role of the state inevitably mean the uncontrolled growth of the bureaucratic leviathan? Holv can man manage to rcconcile these fir'o inherently difierent types of institutions?

Bureaucracy lacks a universal definition. It sometimes is used in disparaging manner to mean unimaginative, rigid and inefficient government administrators. It is associated with red-tapism, delay and wastefulness. Many social scientists describe bureaucracy,in a neutral way to mean a specific form of social organization involved in administrative efforts. It is a machine, which is needed to run the government of the day.

The present administrative structure of India has emerged from the British colonial system which was solely concerned with the maintenance of law and order and collection of revenue. After independence, the functions of government underwent a fundamental change. The responsibility of bringing about desired economic and political change in India has in greater part fallen on the bureaucracy, which was built up over the years by the British to suit their objectives. With the adoption of new goals and objectives, the functioning of bureaucracy also underwent changes. Formerly the bureaucracy in India had to function in the background of colonial rule, but it was now supposed to work in the framework of a democracy with the active involvement of the people for whose welfare the state existed.

What is Development Administration ?

 Привет, это Дэвид.  - Он замолчал, не зная, что сказать. Беккер терпеть не мог говорить с автоответчиком: только задумаешься, а тот уже отключился.

 Нет.  - Он усмехнулся.  - Я попросил Фонтейна передать его наследникам Танкадо.  - Он взял ее руку и натянул что-то на палец. - Лжец, - засмеялась Сьюзан, открывая .

2 comments

Christopher B.

The wiser advocates of development administration recognize that governments of developing countries have many other goals in addition to economic and social.

REPLY

Perry J.

Bureaucracy in a political theory is mainly a centralized form of management and tends to be differentiated from adhocracy , in which management tends more to decentralization.

REPLY

Leave a comment

it’s easy to post a comment

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>