(a) A hierarchical structure and organization by functional specialty as enunciated by Weber’s principles of modern bureaucracy are two important facets of a government organization because they both serve as control tools in the efficient delivery of basic services to the public. Hierarchy represents the classic command-and-control relationship that is a defining feature in many organizational settings, including governments. A hierarchical structure permits those in the higher rung of the hierarchy to review the conduct of activities by those in the lower rung. It serves as a control tool that assures democratic accountability or to put it bluntly, for politicians to control the exercise of administrative power (Ingraham and Lynn 2004). In a democracy where leaders are elected by the people, a hierarchical structure is important because it clearly sets up a chain of command. In such a system, anything that goes wrong is blamed on the authority at the top of the chain, such as the President or the Prime Minister, as the case may be. Thus administrations are often named after the person at the top of the hierarchy, such as the Nixon Administration or the Clinton Administration. Any good thing that happened during that administration or any successful policy implemented during the leader’s term is attributed to his or her administration and not to the particular agency or branch of the government that successfully implemented such policy. In this way, a leader exerts all efforts to ensure that the various agencies of the government do their tasks faithfully and efficiently. Another principle of bureaucracy, according to Weber, that is useful in a governmental set-up is organization by functional specialty. In this system, an organization is divided into various units, each of which performs specific and specialized functions. The government performs many functions the end of which is to keep the government relevant to the people. Thus, several departments, agencies and branches have to be created to perform certain specific tasks. Even in the department level, sub-units are created to perform specialized tasks or certain technical functions. The advantage of functional specialization is that tasks are performed better because of familiarity. It is no wonder that a meta-study of previous research on the matter showed that steeper hierarchical structure results in better performance of the organization than in flatter structures (Anderson and Brown 2010).
(b). A government that does not follow the Weberian precepts of modern bureaucracy will most likely suffer in terms of efficiency and lack of order. The absence of a hierarchical structure implies that there is no clear person that can take responsibility for the actions and failures of the various parts of the organization. There is no driving force or authority that impels these various parts towards the achievement of a unified goal. Without a hierarchy or a well-defined path of communication, persons within the organization do not know who to report to. Since the government is a massive structure, the absence of hierarchy will result in chaos that can affect the efficient delivery of services. On the other hand, the absence of well-defined rules with which the government and all its divisions must abide by could result in inconsistency in decisions and ultimately, diminishing credibility of authority of the leaders. If the organization is not divided into functional specialty, redundancy and confusion at various levels may occur, which could again affect government efficiency and performance. If the rule on the impersonal conduct of work is disregarded, government efficiency and performance will be greatly impacted because instead of focusing on public welfare, the conduct of work is geared either towards personal or political agenda. Finally, if employment within the governmental structure fails to abide by the rule on merit-based employment, the government will not only be staffed by incompetent individuals, which could impact on the overall performance and efficiency of the government, but it could also lead to the lack of its credibility and diminished legitimacy.
2. The poor perception of bureaucracy by the public stemmed from the managerial failures and poor performance of governments. As a result, bureaucracies are now associated with red tape, inaccessibility, inefficiency and corruption. The existence of many rules and regulations that govern bureaucracies can be overwhelming in the public eye. Red tape in the governmental bureaucracy is a common complaint in the United States, which is why many people are discouraged from seeking the benefits they deserved to avoid long lines, voluminous forms to fill, and long waiting time for government response. Various administrations have attempted to reorganize the bureaucracy by decentralization and fewer rules, among others, but did not succeed. The reason for such failure is attributed to the co-existence of the two masters of the bureaucracy, namely the President and Congress. There is often a tug-of-war between these two forces, with each preventing the other to gain more foothold and power in the bureaucracy than the other. As a result, there is absence of unanimity in resolving red tape (USHistory.org 2016). The association of red tape to the government bureaucracy creates a perception that the latter is something oppressive, difficult and unresponsive to public needs.
Another factor that makes the word ‘bureaucracy’ loathsome is its association with inaccessibility. Big governments have big bureaucracies and size often limits accessibility by the public. In the eyes of the public, a massive bureaucracy is faceless, remote and hard to reach. In large cities, for example, electorates feel that it is difficult for them to reach elected officials and discuss with the topics, such as taxation, services and policies. This perception of difficulty may be less in smaller communities.
Many past incidents have created a perception that the government bureaucracy is chaotic, confused and inefficient especially during crisis. This has led many to deride ‘bureaucracy’ as an institution. For example, during the anthrax crises in 2001, the public was given confusing information by the government of lack of bureaucratic coordination. At that time, there were three contending authorities handling the incident: President Bush, the President, Tommy Thompson, the Secretary of Health and Human Services appointed by Bush, and Dr. Jeffrey Koplan, who was appointed by Bush’s predecessor Bill Clinton as head of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. During the days following the attack, the public felt that it was not enough getting enough information from the government about the attacks adding and further sowing panic. The public accused Kaplan and CDC of information neglect and deliberate withholding of information. Thompson added to the confusion by making public statements of the medical facets of the attacks. Bush’s inability to control the various government agencies that were in conflict with each other further aggravated the situation and encouraged the power struggle within the bureaucracy (Kahn 2009). Incidents like the aforesaid one have cemented in the public mind the perception that the government bureaucracy is inefficient, chaotic and out of control.
The perception of corruption is another element that is being associated with government bureaucracy, which helps give the concept of bureaucracy a bad reputation. Transparency International reported that in its 2012 survey more than 2/3 of countries in the world are perceived to be seriously corrupt garnering scores between 1 to 50 on a scale of 1 to 100, with 100 as the cleanest and 1 as the most corrupt (2015). The implication of this is that many people in the world see their respective government bureaucracies as corrupt. This perception has clearly blackened the concept of bureaucracy diminishing this system of efficiently dealing with large scale organizations, such as governments.
3. Bureaucratic infighting in the government may occur because of the specialized functions of its agencies. One agency may be tasked to promote the development of a certain facet of life and in the exercise of this function may intervene with the function of another agency, which is to regulate or prevent the harm that may result from the excessive use of elements that may be included in the developmental goals of the first. An example of this would be the possible conflict of the positions of the Department of Energy (or the DoE) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the Keystone Project. The Keystone Pipeline project was a proposed oil pipeline with a capacity of 830,000 barrels a day that would have run buried underground from Hardisty, Alberta in Canada to Steele City in Nebraska. It would have been about 1,179 mile long. The goal of the project was to secure the energy needs of the United States and boost its economy. The project, however, was denied permit by President Obama in December 2015 (Trans Canada 2016). The Keystone Pipeline project epitomizes an example of a project that would see the opposing stands of two government agencies and trigger bureaucratic infighting.
The ultimate mission of the DoE, according to its website, is to advance the US’ economic security and sustain its global leadership by guaranteeing its energy security. The materialization of the Keystone Pipeline project would have been in line with the agency’s goals. In fact, the agency commissioned a study in 2011, which showed that the project would greatly reduce the US’ dependence on non-Canadian oil imports, including Middle East oil imports (Trans Canada 2011). The project was seen as the best oil supply available that would have guaranteed the energy security of the US because Canada is not only a friendlier country, but it is also more stable. Other countries, such as the Middle East, Venezuela and Mexico, from where the US import oil from are seen as less stable, which could place at risk the country’s energy security. With the Keystone Pipeline, which would directly infuse crude oil from Canada through the pipelines to the US, dependence on these less stable and less friendly countries would be diminished. The project was also expected to create 42,100 direct and indirect jobs during its construction and even after construction for operation, maintenance, repair and services (Goldberg 2015). The project would have met both the goals of the DoE to boost the US economy through energy security. Therefore, it would not be surprising if the DoE would take a position that would be supportive of the project.
The EPA, on the other hand, does not have a direct conflicting goal with the DoE. Its website states that its mission is “to protect human health and the environment” (EPA 2015). However, it is a known fact that the use of fossil fuel has harmful effects on the environment and projects that involved this would surely have the agency’s ears. Indeed, EPA had issued warnings against the harmful effects of the project to the environment. It said that the pipeline could trigger the development of more tar sands in Canada thereby increasing oil production to export through the pipelines because exporting them by rail or truck is more expensive. This is especially true after oil prices have gone down recently. The increase in oil production, according to EPA, would increase greenhouse emissions in the environment, which could exacerbate the global warming being experienced today (Neuhauser 2015). Since the goal of EPA is to protect human life by ensuring that the environment where people live is safe, it would not be surprising that the agency would vehemently oppose the construction of the Keystone pipelines. Thus, although it belongs to the same bureaucracy as the DoE, it would not be farfetched to see it opposing that agency’s stand on the issue had the project materialized.
(b) The lack of harmony on the issue of the construction of the 1,500 oil pipeline from Canada to the US was not only confined to the Executive branch and its agencies, but also extended to the legislature, federal and states. Although the US Senate approved the bill authorizing construction of the pipeline, the bill was not without opposition. In fact, there were 36 senators who registered their opposition to the bill. All Republican senators voted for the passage of the bill, but the Democrats were divided on the issue. The Republicans, particularly Senate Majority Floor Leader McConnell, rationalized their vote with the impact of the project to US employment and the billions of dollars it would pumped into the country’s economy (Scanlon 2015). On the other hand, six Democrats co-sponsored the bill with the Republicans even as President Obama reiterated his opposition to the bill. The nine Democrats who voted for the bill likewise anchored their reason on the massive job-generation and energy security that the project would give (Atkinson 2015). In the House of Representatives, the bill was passed by 272 to 152 votes despite a presidential veto threat. Only one Republican – Justin Amash of Michigan - opposed the bill. However, Amash’s reason for opposing the bill is not due to environmental concerns but the fact that the bill was singling out one company – the Trans Canada – as its beneficiary. According to him, the bill should apply to any company that meets the requirements of the law (Veer 2015). Democrats who sided with the majority of the Republicans in supporting the bill based their decision on the claim that the project would generate the much needed employment for many Americans and for an opportunity to be less dependent on oil-rich nations that are not really friendly to America. Democrats who joined the Republican forces were considered moderates or conservatives, and even progressive Democrats such as James Clyburn of South Carolina and Sheila Jackson of Texas. On the other hand, the Democrats who opposed the bill justified their vote on environmental concerns believing that any gain from the project would eventually be outweighed by its negative impact (Dumain 2015).
References
Anderson and Brown (2010). The Functions and Dysfunctions of Hierarchy. Research in Organizational Behavior (2010). Retrieved from http://www.haas.berkeley.edu/faculty/papers/anderson/functions%20and%20dysfunctions%20of%20hierarchy.pdf
Atkinson, K. (2015). The Nine Senate Democrats who Support the Keystone XL Pipeline. Retrieved from http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-nine-senate-democrats-who-support-the-keystone-xl-pipeline
Dumain, E. (2015). 28 House Democrats Defy Obama, Join GOP to Pass Keystone. Roll Call. Retrieved from http://www.rollcall.com/218/keystone-vote-28-democrats-join-gop/
Goldberg, S. (2015). Why We Should ALL Want the Keystone Pipeline. Wall Street Daily. Retrieved from http://www.wallstreetdaily.com/2015/02/02/keystone-xl-pipeline-benefits/
Ingraham, P. and Lynn, L. (2004). The Art of Governance: Analyzing Management and Administration. Georgetown University Press.
Kahn, L. (2009). Who’s in Charge? ABC-CLIO.
Neuhauser, A. (2015). EPA: Keystone XL Will Impact Global Warming. US News. Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/02/03/epa-keystone-xl-pipeline-will-impact-global-warming
Scanlon, K. (2015). Find Out How Your Senators Voted on the Keystone XL Pipeline. The Daily Signal. Retrieved from http://dailysignal.com/2015/01/29/find-senators-voted-keystone-xl-pipeline/
Trans Canada (2016). About the Keystone XL Pipeline. Retrieved from http://www.keystone-xl.com/about/the-keystone-xl-oil-pipeline-project/
Trans Canada (2016). Media Advisory: U.S. Department of Energy Report Supports Keystone XL Study Shows Pipeline Will Reduce Middle East Oil Dependence. Retrieved from http://www.transcanada.com/announcements-article.html?id=1389251&t=
Transparency International (2015). Corruption Perceptions Index 2012. Retrieved from http://www.transparency.org/cpi2012/results
USHistory.org (2016). Bureaucracy: The Real Government. Retrieved from http://www.ushistory.org/gov/8d.asp
Veer, PG (2015). Why did this Republican Voted against the Keystone Pipeline? Retrieved from http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/12/why-did-this-republican-vote-against-the-keystone-pipeline/
