Modern Bureaucracy: From Weber to Evans

The History of Prussia (16th century to the first half of the 20th century) is an important chapter in European history. Starting as a small feudal territory, it later became one of the most powerful states in Germany and one of the main drivers of German unification. Prussia has a dominant role in military control, the bureaucratic system, and the European balance of power. Although Prussia no longer exists as a state, it has profoundly impacted European history.

Frederick the Great (1740-1786) made Prussia one of the most powerful states in Europe. Otto von Bismarck was a key figure in the unification of Germany. In 1871, following the Franco-Prussian War, Prussia established the German Empire, and King Wilhelm I of Prussia was proclaimed Emperor of Germany. Prussia became the most important state in Germany. 

After Germany's defeat in World War I, the German Empire collapsed in 1918, and the Prussian monarchy ended. In 1919, the Weimar Republic was established and Prussia lost its independence. After World War II, in 1947, the Allied Powers officially declared the state of Prussia extinct.

Webber's proposal 

Max Weber's ideas about modern bureaucracy came from Prussia's successful and effective bureaucracy. Weber died in 1920, and Prussia was dissolved into a unified Germany in 1947. 

The then-ruler of Prussia, Frederick William (1640-88), became embroiled in a 30-year-long war. He had to wait for permission from the Diet or Parliament to finance the war. Apart from these, he formed his own revenue service by law. In the past, different nobles ruled different cities or regions; apart from them, he started recruiting a permanent workforce of his own choice.

The centralised bureaucracy in Prussia began in 1723 with the unification of war and financial management. After the cities were removed from the aristocracy and placed under central rule, these nobles were promoted to administrative positions in distant places. The king allowed the common people to rise to high administrative positions. Although the initial salary was low, later promotions to higher positions were given in exchange for faithful and qualified service. 

Frederick II appointed detectives to monitor them. The influence of the aristocracy and the Church was curtailed by evaluating education and intelligence. A civilian administration was established.

Frederick undertook efforts to introduce land reform, customs excise reform, criminal law, and the National Primary Education Project (1763).

Appointment of officers to senior positions began in 1771 through the Civil Service Examination. As a result, employers had the opportunity to exercise their power more independently. As a result of these reforms, Germany was united under the mediation of Prussia, and unprecedented economic development took place. However, these officials created a lot of problems, too. For example, middle-level officials obstructed various reform activities, including railway reform. 

Despite various development activities, this bureaucracy could not adequately prepare the country to cope with the economic losses of the First World War. Hitler made a law to demote and dismiss officers who opposed his ideology. 

At the end of World War II, the bureaucracy returned to its previous position in defeating Germany with the introduction of the constitution made under American prescription in 1949. 

Max Weber saw in the bureaucracy prevailing in Prussia a class of skilled, permanently paid, trained, and indentured servants. They were appointed and promoted based on merit and worked within specific laws. The conduct and personal views of all the employees engaged in the work would be consistent with their work and employment. There would be a definite hierarchy. 

What had previously been individualistic, Weber's experience and suggestions became essential to governments, administrations, and institutions.

The state civil administration, the army, police, judiciary, educational institutions, universities, laboratories, or all those who possess the above characteristics are part of the bureaucracy. 

Weber encouraged slight deviations from these standard features as needed. In his theory, he analysed the British, American, and Japanese bureaucracies prevalent at that time.

The British administration

In the 18th century, Britain was mainly governed by elite volunteers. To consolidate the king's power, the prime minister, on behalf of the king, used to make nominations for various posts in the central government on the basis of loyalty. The prime minister's job would have been lost if he had made the wrong appointment. 

The war in the 1740s and 1750s required much money, during which time land was significantly reduced. The increased demand for military power was met through indirect taxes, including stamp duty, customs, and excise.

After the loss of the colonies in America, the Public Accounts Commission was formed under the parliament in 1780 to carry out various economic reforms. The commission makes a list of all those engaged in civil service. The first major reform was proposed in the report of the Public Accounts Commission (1780-86). The main proposals were that the person should work on his own, the salary should be fixed, and the work should be done within certain strict rules and not through a representative. 

However, due to the French Revolution, these reforms' pace slowed. 

The Northcote-Trevelyan Report (1853-54) offers some more important suggestions. Appointments and promotions are provided based on merit through the open examination system instead of nomination on behalf of the king. These proposals were thoughtfully implemented after the defeat in the Crimean War and the Sepoy Mutiny in India. The Imperial / Indian Civil Service (ICS) was formed in 1919. Later, such a service was established in the country. 

While Gladstone was Minister of Finance (1859-66), the Audit Department was set up to monitor the civil service's income and expenditures, and recruitment and promotion were ensured through merit-based examinations in the home civil service. The king's nomination was limited, and the king's direct control over factories, prisons, communications, post office services, etc., was reduced. 

According to Weber, the British bureaucracy's moves slowed in the post-Gladstone era. At that time, except for the Indian Civil Service, no training was given after recruitment. Although these principally Oxford-Cambridge-educated bureaucrats were effective as generalists, they had difficulty adapting to some of the changing science and technology-based development programs.

In this context, in the light of the Fulton Committee Report (1966-68), the Civil Service Training College was established in 1970 to train officers.

The process of centralising the civil service in Britain was long. Though they were appointed centrally, they were posted and transferred to different departments. Inter-Departmental Committees report to the Cabinet Committee. The Planning Department, created to spend public money, is a robust central structure. Posts at the top of large departments are appointed centrally, and transfers are implemented within the department.

The central government is strong in Britain, but it still needs to work on creating an integrated bureaucracy.

US Executive Branch 

From the very beginning of the state's formation, the United States developed a system of state power by introducing political leadership through elections. The administrative structure is made with the utmost care in dealing with monarchy or autocracy. 

Members of Parliament or Senators / House Representatives are barred from holding office, ministership, or any other office in the exercise of any executive power. Again, government officials were barred from becoming legislators. 

The founding Fathers of the United States viewed the excesses of government offices with suspicion, so various measures were taken to establish checks and balances. The President nominates and approves the appointments of government officials. To maintain continuity, the President and legislators can be re-elected every four years so that all government officials and policymakers remain the same. 

The First Tenure of Office Act of 1820 gave government employees (excluding federal judgeships) the power to be reappointed after election by the President, who is elected every four years. This stopped nepotism but prevented the formation of a permanent civil service. As a result, the American spoil system developed, and their job fortunes depended on the victory of a particular political party. They would deposit a portion of the job salary at the party office and work for the party outside the job so that the party would win the next election. But if the party changed and a new president was elected, there would be a huge clutter and turmoil for nomination in government jobs. The former losers begin to make trouble. 

One such disillusioned candidate killed President Garfield in 1881. In this context, the Pendleton Act of 1883 introduced appointment based on merit. 

Weber believed US government officials had low social status because they valued skills and thus underperformed the bureaucracy. However, gradually, recruitment on the basis of merit began to increase, and funding for the party was stopped.

According to the current law, one percent (1%) of the employees of the secret, important, or head of office type and Skagual-III category of the central government are directly nominated by the President. In these cases, approval is often obtained by proposing names consistent with the agency's policy.

About 80% to 85% of the central government jobs are permanent and merit-based. The rest are appointed on merit but on a temporary contract basis. Only 1% of the workforce is temporarily employed by direct nomination of the President. 

However, most of the recruitment is done by the state governments. Different states have different appointment systems; for example, in some states, judges are appointed by election.

Bureaucracy of Japan 

During the Tokugawa rule from 1603 to 1868, warrior samurai exercised varying administrative power. There was a nominal king, and his executive power was limited. 

After the Meiji Revolution or Restoration, the monarchy was re-empowered. In 1868, the bureaucracy was established by appointing high-level officials to neutralise the power of the feudal lords. The officers appointed through the public service examination were university-educated and well-trained in administration. 

Later, in 1889, the king's power was decentralised through the parliament and political parties, but the administration remained accountable to the king through the cabinet and the prime minister.

After the devastation of World War II, Japan's bureaucracy moved away from traditional bureaucracy and focused on economic bureaucracy. The National Public Service Act of 1947 introduced the public service examination, salary, and public dissatisfaction redressal process. The Ministry of Finance is empowered in budget matters, and the power of the Prime Minister or the Cabinet is curtailed. The Ministry of Defence/Home Ministry was abolished. A large number of former bureaucrats are members of parliament or the Diet. 

Bureaucrats got the opportunity to exercise more power than the MPs. 

As bureaucrats exercised more power, there was much competition for promotion and higher positions. There was also much trouble with the limits and amount of power of one department compared to another. After retirement, the competition continued for higher positions in the government and private sectors. 

In the three decades from 1946 to 1976, Japan's economy grew 55 times. Many want to give credit to Japan's economic bureaucracy. 

Later, power was decentralized to some extent, judicial review was strengthened, and the free flow of information became a barrier against the power of the economic bureaucracy.

Evans' tripod model of state management

By analysing the administrative structure of the above four countries, it is understood that the structure of a country's bureaucracy is built on the socio-economic and mainly political context of that country, and bureaucratic activities are conducted. The political management of a country, the type of leadership, and the political commitment control the nature of the bureaucracy. 

In many cases, more obstacles to policy change come from the bureaucracy against political will. 

Bureaucracy is governed by laws made by parliamentarians. Members of Parliament again have the opportunity to make laws as representatives of the people of an area. As a result, the people's representatives have the legal right to coordinate between the people and the bureaucracy.

The people's representatives in the parliament narrow their role by delegating the power to perform specific tasks to a permanent bureaucracy. At times, it slows down the pace of work by taking temporary features of the parliament as an opportunity for permanent implementation. 

Is it good or bad? Although the word "bureaucrat" is used in a negative sense worldwide, bureaucracy is an integral part of a country.

According to a World Bank analysis, East Asian economic miracles, such as Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, China, etc, have succeeded due to strong bureaucracies. The first step in this regard was to appoint competent and relatively honest people in the bureaucracy and keep them away from day-to-day political interference. Many international development agencies have suggested that bureaucrats should avoid political interference to transform developing countries into developed countries.

The implementation of Mao Tse-tung and his subsequent plans in China has been possible due to the country's long, ancient, and traditional central bureaucratic management. At the same time, however, such central planning in many countries falls flat due to the absence of a strong bureaucratic tradition. 

One of the many criticisms of bureaucracy is that bureaucrats are accountable to their superiors, much less accountable to the public. Also, there is no competition in the market for bureaucrats' services. Hence, they are interested in something other than comparing the cost-benefit with the cost-benefit of serving the people. Bad bureaucracy often falls into the clutches of private parties. It becomes corrupt, acting as a black hole for the vicious circle. 

By becoming overly law-based, bureaucrats lose sight of the philosophy of true service to the people and lose flexibility. Having different types of offices for the same work creates a huge lack of coordination and does not create a sense of responsibility for a particular person.

Identifying the problems, Peter Evans 2003 proposed a people-friendly functional bureaucracy model. The model includes three steps: 

1. To increase the capacity of the bureaucracy by following the ideal characteristics proposed by Weber 

2. Adjusting the market price by analysing the cost-benefit of the people and the government in obtaining services

3. To ensure accountability by reflecting the people's aspirations in government activities through representative democracy at all levels 

However, many development agencies, including the World Bank, have warned that excessive democratic control should not hamper effective bureaucracy. In this regard, the East Asian Miracle countries have been suggested as a model. The discussion on how effective the control can be needs to continue. 

In many countries, private companies, crony capitalists, and predator oligarchs can assume varying degrees of control over political and bureaucratic power. In such a situation, it is difficult for the actual market signal or market demand to be reflected in the policies and services provided. In this case, the people are greatly affected; there can be a mass movement and a change of power. Policy change becomes inevitable.

In many cases, increasing bureaucrats' freedom of personal discretion benefits the public despite the strictness of the law. The one-stop type of service benefits people without excessive departmentalism.

Bureaucracy in underdeveloped countries 

More needs to be discussed about developed countries, and the experiences of developing countries must be observed to understand the true nature of bureaucracy,

In the 1960s, three of Africa's poorest countries — Mauritius, Botswana and Uganda — gained independence. Although Mauritius and Botswana are on the cusp of effective development, Uganda is on the brink of collapse. In 2023, the per capita income of Mauritius, Botswana, and Uganda will be around $11300, $7500, and $1120, respectively. The whole thing can be explained by discussing various socio-economic indicators. From a bureaucratic point of view, however, Weberian bureaucratic institutions did not develop in Uganda as they did in Mauritius and Botswana. Uganda has massively privatised the permanent bureaucratic system by hollowing it out, reducing the size of the government, and leaving day-to-day operations to private sector contracts. The powerful, from their own circles and acquaintances, make temporary appointments to various posts. 

In fact, dismantling such a Weberian bureaucratic institution is easy, time-consuming, difficult, and tedious. Despite some weaknesses, Mauritius and Botswana ensured merit-based recruitment, promotion, and long-term assured careers rather than dismantling these institutions as in Uganda. Some organisations do the needful. 

They understand that the current bureaucratic structure of developed countries only applies to some. 

Uganda and many underdeveloped countries worldwide are not getting the desired results due to the failure to properly implement Weberian bureaucratic features. Merit-based recruitment and promotion are the name of the riddle here. Bureaucracy becomes "Crazy" in these countries! 

This brotherhood of brokerage or brotherhood develops under various family, political, and economic benefits. The task of these brothers is to establish themselves separately from the Weberian bureaucracy by rising above the institutions and the law. People need to find out who runs the institutions. Hierarchy is on paper. Weber is sent into exile. 

The strength of this brotherhood comes from under the black shadow of political and business institutions. Government and corruption go hand in hand; development falls flat, and people are deprived. 

In such countries, although there is a mild discussion of separating the responsibilities and duties of the executive and judicial bureaucrats, the representatives of the legislative department are very much interested in interfering in the work of the permanent bureaucrats of the executive department. There is no discussion or debate on this. Evans' proposed tripod model's three legs become long-haired, short-grown, and deformed. Government and administration collapse. 

However, it is more critical to implement bureaucracy as a dynamic trend rather than as a permanent form. The real welfare of the people is achieved by constantly monitoring the existing bureaucracy and continually balancing and correcting its weaknesses. The welfare of the modern state lies in the strengthening of the bureaucratic institutions proposed by Max Weber, taking help from Peter Evans's tripod model.

Towheed Elahi. Sketch: TBS