Bureaucracy in the field
Download
1 / 51

Bureaucracy in the Field - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 351 Views
  • Updated On :

Bureaucracy in the Field. Khurram Butt David Bell Topic 9. Rural Development / Community Development. Heady. Armstrong. Wallis. Turner & Hulme. Wallis. Sectoral Implications. Fried. Local Govt. / Local Administration. Decentralization / Devolution. Picard. Mills.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Bureaucracy in the Field' - Melvin


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Bureaucracy in the field l.jpg

Bureaucracy in the Field

Khurram Butt

David Bell

Topic 9


Slide2 l.jpg

Rural Development / Community Development

Heady

Armstrong

Wallis

Turner & Hulme

Wallis

Sectoral Implications

Fried

Local Govt. / Local Administration

Decentralization / Devolution

Picard

Mills

Bureaucracy in the field

Greene

Orwell

Tarrow

Inter-Govt Relations

Authoritarianism / Culture

Elite Theory

Armstrong

Baker

Mills

Heady

Armstrong

Bureaucracy in the Field – Literary Map


Slide3 l.jpg
“Shooting the Elephant” by George Orwellin Green and Walzer (1969), “The Political Imagination in Literature”

A political essay by Orwell that draws on his experience as a Colonial Official in India and Burma

Story of a police officer in Burma who feels compelled to shoot a rogue elephant

Does so because he does not want to appear ‘indecisive or cowardly’ in front of the native Burmese

Backdrop: imperialist-native tension; both sides feel hatred, distrust and resentment


Slide4 l.jpg
“Shooting the Elephant” by George Orwellin Green and Walzer (1969), “The Political Imagination in Literature”

Not just a story about shooting an elephant but also “… the tragedy, violence and farce of imperialism”

An example of Orwell’s anti-imperialist and anti-authoritarian stance

The essay is both political and metaphorical

Social structure in which individuals are considered to be governable and manipulateable, depersonalized units

Dilemma of the man who tries to be his free and true self in a system that asks him to be an automaton


Slide5 l.jpg
“Shooting the Elephant” by George Orwellin Green and Walzer (1969), “The Political Imagination in Literature”

Orwell’s abhorrence for the ‘unfree’ society

Society that does not let the individual be his ‘off duty’ self

“The unfree leader”

I perceived in this moment that when the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys. He becomes a sort of hollow, posing dummy … For it is the condition of his rule that he shall spend his life in trying to impress the “natives,” and so in every crisis he has got to do what the “natives” expect of him. He wears a mask, and his face grows to fit it. I had got to shoot the elephant.


Bureaucracy in the field6 l.jpg
Bureaucracy in the Field

  • “Men” that occupy positions where decisions “mightily affect” daily life of “ordinary” people

  • Control major hierarchies and organizations

    • Big corporations

    • “machinery of the state”

    • Direct the military

    • Strategic positions of social structure

Mills, Charles Wright (1959). The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press


Bureaucracy in the field7 l.jpg
Bureaucracy in the Field

  • The level below the elites:

    • “Professional politicians”—Congress

    • “Pressure groups”

    • “upper classes” of municipalities

    • “Professional celebrities”

      • Not leading powerful institutions

      • Influence masses—gain ear of the powerful

  • Very Rich, Chief Execs, Military, Political

    • Constant military threat-all political and economic actions are viewed according to a military definition of reality


Bureaucracy in the field8 l.jpg
Bureaucracy in the Field

  • Very Rich—Corporate Rich

  • Two explanations for the fact of the very rich

    • “something demonic”—exploitation, murder, legal strategies, etc

    • Economic and political structure

  • “Private appropriations” from public resources

    • Land for railroads

    • Shipbuilding

    • Military supply contracts


Bureaucracy in the field9 l.jpg
Bureaucracy in the Field

  • Wealth “perpetuates” and monopolizes

  • Men—80%-90% of US wealth

  • American citizens, raised in the cities, eastern US, highly educated—primarily Ivy League (mostly Harvard and Yale)


Bureaucracy in the field10 l.jpg
Bureaucracy in the Field

  • Where do they come from? (con’t)

    • Protestants (50% Episcopalians, 25% Presbyterians)

    • Major economic fact: “accumulation of advantages”

      • Inherited wealth

      • “Economic politicians” in business

        • “power of property” and corporate structure


Bureaucracy in the field11 l.jpg
Bureaucracy in the Field

  • Chief Executives

    • Were portrayed as “efficient, straightforward, and honest”

    • Other views considered them much less

    • Very Rich and Chief Executives are interrelated in the business work of property and privilege


Bureaucracy in the field12 l.jpg
Bureaucracy in the Field

  • Growth and interconnections of businesses have paved the way for a sophisticated executive elite

    • Class-wide property, not specific

    • “Interlocking Directorate”

  • Their decisions determine the national economy

    • Also, the public policy measures to defend their privileges


Bureaucracy in the field13 l.jpg
Bureaucracy in the Field

  • Chief Executives are the top stratum of corporations

    • Advise, consult, and receive information from operational managers—second stratum

  • American prototype of Chief Executives—Owen Yong, GE

    • Corporation was a public institution

    • Executives, public trustees

    • Big corporations-”institutions”, not thought of as a private business

    • Trade associations = corporate church, moral restrainer


Bureaucracy in the field14 l.jpg
Bureaucracy in the Field

  • The Political Directorate—political outsiders representing the corporate rich p235

    • Legal, managerial, financial experts

  • Executive centers of government decisions—”political directorate of the power elite”

    • Not professional bureaucrats nor party politicians


Bureaucracy in the field15 l.jpg
Bureaucracy in the Field

  • The American Politician

    • “valuable originator” and “cheap tool”

    • “high statesman” and “dirty politician”

    • “public servant” and “sly conniver”

    • “regularly enacts a role in political institutions” and considers it a primary activity


Bureaucracy in the field16 l.jpg
Bureaucracy in the Field

  • Political outsiders – absence of genuine bureaucracy

    • Organized hierarchy

      • Skills and authorities

      • Constrained by specialized tasks

      • Servants have no ownership or authority

      • It is the authority of the office

      • Salary is the sole payment


Bureaucracy in the field17 l.jpg
Bureaucracy in the Field

  • There is not, nor ever has been, a “genuine civil service”

    • Reliable civil service career

    • Independent bureaucracy above political party pressure


Bureaucracy in the field18 l.jpg
Bureaucracy in the Field

  • Governmental decentralization—Scandinavian “field laboratory”

    • Characteristics of “decision making” and “political control” in advanced economic and social welfare systems

  • Local authorities gain administrative responsibility

    • Political authority for priorities and policies remain a central level

Picard, Louis A. (1983). Decentralization, “Recentralization” & “Steering Mechanisms”:

Paradoxes of Local Government in Denmark in Polity, Vol 15, No. 4, pages 536-554.


Bureaucracy in the field19 l.jpg
Bureaucracy in the Field

  • Decentralization in response to citizens demand for better service

    • Assumed there will be local political control

  • Increased local duties, swift increase in local bureaucratic structures

    • Problematic local participation and political control

    • “recentralized” policy-making

    • “steering mechanisms” to ensure an egalitarian, high quality of social service


Bureaucracy in the field20 l.jpg
Bureaucracy in the Field

  • Corporatist—beyond area/function dichotomy

    • Reduction in the areal administrator not necessarily an increase in functional administration

    • Could be an increase in “peak” organizational control

      • Branches of the state working in association as an interest group directly influencing the process of government


Bureaucracy in the field21 l.jpg
Bureaucracy in the Field

  • Elite Theory—Authoritarianism and Culture

    • Who are they?

      • American-men that control major hierarchies and organizations (Mills 4, 274-276)

        • Big corporations, machinery of the state, direct the military, strategic positions of social structure

        • All political and economic actions are viewed according to a military definition of reality

        • Politics has declined as a genuine and public debate of alternative decisions

        • The economy: permanent-war and private-corporation, “military capitalism”


Bureaucracy in the field22 l.jpg
Bureaucracy in the Field

  • Elite Theory—Authoritarianism and Culture

    • Very Rich-Corporate Rich

      • Economic and political structure of America

      • “Private appropriations” from public resources

      • Wealth perpetuates and monopolizes


Bureaucracy in the field23 l.jpg
Bureaucracy in the Field

  • Elite Theory—Authoritarianism and Culture

    • Traditional Elite Regimes: Monarchy, aristocrats; religious legitimization (Heady 313, 314)

      • Orth-traditional regimes-longer history, ruling family relying monarchical claim for legitimacy

        • Example: Saudi Arabia

        • Emphasized rapid industrialization and providing public service

        • Cautious reformers, severely curtailing political activity, main the political status quo

        • These regimes have a lower prospect for survival


Bureaucracy in the field24 l.jpg
Bureaucracy in the Field

  • Elite Theory—Authoritarianism and Culture

    • Neo-traditional regimes-less common but more recent (Heady 315)

      • Example: Iran

      • From religious legitimizing sources

      • Religious orthodoxy-overarching public policy goal

      • Usual modernizing goals are secondary

      • More activist in advancing announced goals

      • Uncertain future

    • Prospects for survival dependent on the competence and effectiveness of bureaucratic officials


Bureaucracy in the field25 l.jpg
Bureaucracy in the Field

  • Elite Theory—Authoritarianism and Culture

    • Bureaucracy

      • The political directorate (Mills 231-235, 241)

      • Relied on by traditional regimes for survival (Heady 315)

        • as instrumentalities of desirable change and inhibitors of unwanted change

        • dependent on bureaucratic competence and effectiveness


Bureaucracy in the field26 l.jpg
Bureaucracy in the Field

  • Elite Theory—Authoritarianism and Culture

    • Bureaucracy

      • One man rule systems

        • Example: Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa, Russia (Chin system)

        • Personalist-single individual dependent on a professional bureaucracy (Heady 321)

        • Leader from military background


Bureaucracy in the field27 l.jpg
Bureaucracy in the Field

  • Elite Theory—Authoritarianism and Culture

    • Bureaucracy

      • One man rule systems

        • Chin & Nomenklatura Systems-Russia 18th and early 19th century secretary/governor (Armstrong 256, 257)

        • “God and Tsar in the oblast (province)”

        • Commanding regular military units in his province

        • All types of civil activity and economic development impacted by military

        • The Tsarist governor was balanced by party secretaries attached to the military units


Bureaucracy in the field28 l.jpg
Bureaucracy in the Field

  • Elite Theory—Authoritarianism and Culture

    • Bureaucracy

      • Collegial Bureaucratic Elite Systems—Corporatist

        • Example: Indonesia, Thailand, Ghana, UK

        • British political system-“Government by Committee” (Armstrong 272, 273)

        • Oxbridge socialization system—collegial decision-making was made smooth and attractive

        • Group of individuals: often professionals bureaucrats from military (Heady 327, 328)

        • Military oligarchy

        • Corporatist regimes

        • Collegiality over hierarchy


Bureaucracy in the field29 l.jpg
Bureaucracy in the Field

  • Elite Theory—Authoritarianism and Culture

    • Pendulum systems (Heady 346, 372)

      • Significant feature of political environment of some developing countries

      • Pattern established swing between bureaucratic elite and polyarchal competitive regimes

        • Examples: Argentina, Brazil, Pakistan, Philippines, Turkey, Costa Rica, Botswana, Singapore, Israel


Bureaucracy in the field30 l.jpg
Bureaucracy in the Field

  • Elite Theory—Authoritarianism and Culture

    • Pendulum systems (Heady 346, 372)

      • Polyarchal competitive regimes

        • Political competition

        • Well-organized political groupings

        • Probability of significant shift in power relationships

        • Without disrupting the system


Bureaucracy in the field31 l.jpg
Bureaucracy in the Field

  • Intergovernmental Relations (IGR) and Local Government and Administration

    • Territorial representation vs Functional Representation (Tarrow 4, 5, 16)

    • Territorial-choice by area; Functional-based on professional, class, and interest organization


Slide32 l.jpg
“Major Traits of Prefectoral Systems” by Robert C. Fried, inNimrod, Raphaeli (1967), “Readings in Comparative Public Administration”

Prefectoral versus Functional Systems

General rep. of central govt. in various regions of the national territory / no such rep.

Central ministries command counterparts in the field through the Prefect / direct line of command

Central govt. control: more penetrating, administrative rather than legislative, and unified under Prefect / less penetrating, legislative rather than administrative, and dispersed among central and field unit


Slide33 l.jpg
“Major Traits of Prefectoral Systems” by Robert C. Fried, inNimrod, Raphaeli (1967), “Readings in Comparative Public Administration”

Common characteristics of prefectoral systems

National territory is divided into various areas

Each area has an appointed high functionary representative of and responsible to the central govt.

Civil career functionary or political appointee who may be dismissed or transferred

Not resident of or native to area he governs

Supervised by a specialized central dept


Bureaucracy in the field34 l.jpg
Bureaucracy in the Field Fried, in

  • Intergovernmental Relations (IGR) and Local Government and Administration

    • Territorial: autonomous jurisdictions with parliamentary/legislative representation (U.S., Britain, French, Italy)

    • Functional: national and local level

      • Functional centralization is about policy making

      • Interest groups, including social and economic councils or advisory bodies

      • Formal and informal

      • Influential on policy

      • Interests channeled through legislative representation

      • Functional increasingly edging classical territorial representation to the side


Bureaucracy in the field35 l.jpg
Bureaucracy in the Field Fried, in

  • Intergovernmental Relations (IGR) and Local Government and Administration

    • Political links of central governments and territorial subunits in industrial nations (Tarrow 2, 3, 12)

      • Linkage between territorial and high levels of government cut across economic dependence, administrative stratification, cultural differences between levels

      • Deep functional cleavages cut through vertical hierarchies of different levels of government

      • These links speak about cohesion—not only cleavages and financial dependency


Bureaucracy in the field36 l.jpg
Bureaucracy in the Field Fried, in

  • Intergovernmental Relations (IGR) and Local Government and Administration

    • IGR predominantly are actions of officials working out policy (Baker 165, 167, 174)

      • Process mediated through multiple decision structures

      • Multiple institutional connections involve territorial authority and functional responsibilities

      • Concept of IGR formed in terms of human relations and behavior

      • Modifying forces in unitary systems: multiple decisions structures, political movements of organized groups, administrative decentralization/devolution


Bureaucracy in the field37 l.jpg
Bureaucracy in the Field Fried, in

  • Intergovernmental Relations (IGR) and Local Government and Administration

    • Great Britain: no territorial government bodies subordinate to the central authorities—tradition of local autonomy is strong (Armstrong 270)

      • Basic device of central intervention: grants and inspections

      • Inspector not rooted in a locality

      • For at least two generations the colonial territories were the more influential—impacting central administration development


Wallis malcolm 1989 bureaucracy its role in third world development l.jpg
Wallis, Malcolm (1989), “Bureaucracy: Its Role in Third World Development”

Local Government

Important to find an appropriate balance between autonomy and control

Local government is one channel through which people may participate in decision-making within their areas (districts, etc.)

Why: Pragmatic & Ethical

Dev. projects and programs fail because people most affected are not allowed to participate in planning or implementation

Tool for political education of lay people

Ethical for people to have a say in what affects them


Bureaucracy in the field39 l.jpg
Bureaucracy in the Field World Development”

  • Community and Rural Development

    • Traditional elite regimes—difficulties in penetrating the community (Heady 315)

      • Reforms to address difficulties embraced reluctantly if at all

    • Prefectural role in development (Armstrong 262, 263)

      • Quasi-aristocratic models: generalist outlook can hinder development

      • Bourgeois specialization can hinder development

      • Line administration in the field: face-to-face with concrete needs

      • France and Russia: prefect to bring resolve in original and personal manner


Wallis malcolm 1989 bureaucracy its role in third world development40 l.jpg
Wallis, Malcolm (1989), “Bureaucracy: Its Role in Third World Development”

Local govt. structures

Depend on the ideology of the regime in power

Colonial rule left its marks in South Asia and Africa

Problems: weak revenue base; staffing issues; autonomy versus centralization

Field Administration

Administrative activity outside of the capital

FAs work for the central govt. but are responsible for a part and not whole of the state

On the spot admin., avoids paralysis due to over-centralization, provides accurate info


Bureaucracy in the field41 l.jpg
Bureaucracy in the Field World Development”

  • Decentralization/Devolution

    • Need to address practical political barriers to authority transfer to local (Picard 567)

    • Demand for better administrative responses to citizens-assumes local political control

    • Political bargaining between national and sub-national interest—both centralize and decentralize (Baker 167, 168, 176)

      • Corporatism-organized interest groups of centralized and bureaucratic administrative entities (Picard 541, 542)

      • Peak associations to speak for groups and directly impact service to the public


Turner and hulme 1997 governance administration development l.jpg
Turner and Hulme (1997), “Governance, Administration & Development”

Decentralization

Territorial or functional transfer of authority to perform some service to the public from individual/agency in central govt. to some other other individual/agency that is closer to the public being served

Central govt. to local govt : Devolution (within formal political structures)

From HQ of ministry to its district offices: Deconcentration (within public admin. Structures)

Parastatal airline sold to private sector: Privatization (from state to non-state agency)


Slide43 l.jpg
“Major Traits of Prefectoral Systems” by Robert C. Fried, inNimrod, Raphaeli (1967), “Readings in Comparative Public Administration”

Integrated versus Unintegrated Prefectoral

Locus of authority

Authority largely deconcentrated from central ministries to prefects; prefect is hierarchically superior to technical experts in the province

Authority largely reserved to the specialist functional officials (direct chain of command)

Communication

Prefect is the sole channel of communication between functional depts. in capital and those in the field

Prefect is neither the normal nor the only channel

Auxilliary Services

Prefecture houses all or most of the state field offices and provides them administrative services

Technical services in the province don’t depend on the prefect; central govt. provides or themselves


Slide44 l.jpg
“Major Traits of Prefectoral Systems” by Robert C. Fried, inNimrod, Raphaeli (1967), “Readings in Comparative Public Administration”

Integrated versus Unintegrated Prefectoral

Areas

State services use the prefecture’s area of operations

Functional services, organized independently, use varying sets of areas

Echelons

Regional offices between prefecture and central ministries are rare

Regional offices, with direct operational responsibility and/or supervisory authority over provinces common

Local Government

Prefect is the CEO of the provincial self-government unit

Separate executive authority runs provincial self-government unit


Turner and hulme 1997 governance administration development45 l.jpg
Turner and Hulme (1997), “Governance, Administration & Development”

Why decentralize

Political education (intro to lay people)

Training in political leadership (prospective pool of leaders)

Political stability (increases trust in govt. through increased participation)

Political equality (increased participation deconcentrates power)

Accountability (more accessible to people)

Responsiveness (accuracy of info)


Bureaucracy in the field46 l.jpg
Bureaucracy in the Field Development”

  • Decentralization/Devolution

    • French example: modify prefectural system to a role of monitoring local authorities

    • Unitary systems—national functions and co-government moved to shared power models

    • It is inconclusive that local policy choices are limited by more central control of financing (Tarrow 10-13)

      • Examples: France, Italy, Norway

      • Local governments can access capital markets (e.g. bonds)

      • Pluralism of urban political systems—influence of a variety of local and central groups

      • Centralization of expenditures is a neutral indicator of relative power


Wallis malcolm 1989 bureaucracy its role in third world development47 l.jpg
Wallis, Malcolm (1989), “Bureaucracy: Its Role in Third World Development”

Problems of bureaucracy in the field

Poor selection of personnel

Unsympathetic attitudes of top mgmt. towards conditions under which field officers work

Weak communication channels between HQ and the field

Conflicting directives from different parts of the HQ machinery causing confusion in the field

Over-frequent transfers of personnel

Poor conditions of service

Structural problems (death by committee!)

No single formula for success in tech. areas


Bureaucracy in the field48 l.jpg
Bureaucracy in the Field World Development”


Bureaucracy in the field49 l.jpg
Bureaucracy in the Field World Development”


Bureaucracy in the field50 l.jpg
Bureaucracy in the Field World Development”


Bureaucracy in the field51 l.jpg
Bureaucracy in the Field World Development”