GOVT
2302: American Government.
Review
for the Third exam.
General
considerations:
The third
examination in this course addresses the extension of the executive branch in
the establishment of the bureaucracy.
A
consideration of American bureaucratic institutions in a discussion of American
government often sparks heated debate, especially between advocates of a strict
interpretation of the American Constitution those who argue for the necessity
of a complex system of administration. The reason for this controversy stems
from the fact that while the Congress, the Presidency and the Judiciary are
expressly described in the US Constitution, the bureaucracy is often explained
merely by references to the commerce clause in Article I.8 clause 3, or the
appointment power of the president in Article II.2, clause 2. The federal
bureaucracy comes under even greater scrutiny as it has expanded significantly
in the last half-century, consuming ever increasing budgetary resources and
establishing rules and regulations independent of the legislative process.
Models
of Bureaucracy
A bureaucracy is a large
organization that is structured hierarchically to carry out specific functions.
The ideal purpose of a bureaucracy is the efficient administration of rules,
regulations, and policies. Governments, businesses, and other institutions such
as colleges and universities have bureaucracies.
Analysis of how bureaucracies
operate and how they should operate are often based on the studies conducted by
the noted sociologist Max Weber. Weber’s model for bureaucracy described these
organizations as hierarchical, in which every person in the organization has a
superior to whom they report. They are also specialized, in which workers have
an area of expertise within the organization as opposed to being knowledgeable
about aspects of the organization generally. Decisions are made based on set
rules, and are typically based on a rational analysis of specific data in order
to ensure the most efficient use of the organizations resources. Finally, the Weberian
model assumes that bureaucracies are politically neutral—that is,
bureaucrats are supposed to administer the rules without bias; no one should be
given preferential treatment.
However,
the Weberian model often does not describe the realities of various
bureaucracies. The Weberian model is a hierarchically organized model with
formal rules and regulations. Power flows from the top down. Decisions are
technical in nature, and the focus is placed on rational unbiased decision
making.
The Acquisitive
model, inspired by the works of the 16th Century Florentine
writer Niccolò Machiavelli, is a view of bureaucracy where decisions are made
for the needs of the bureaucrats. Each division of the bureaucracy is most
concerned with protecting the "turf" of the department and expanding
the size of their budget. Once created, an agency will continue to seek new
goals in order to justify the existence of the agency.
The Monopolistic
model views bureaucracy as the sole provider of a service. Without
competition, the department has little or no incentive to be efficient, and
they typically are not penalized for waste or inefficiencies.
Finally,
the most cynical view of bureaucracy is that of the Garbage Can model.
This view maintains that decisions in a bureaucracy generally lack purpose.
There is virtually no rational decision making, and bureaucracy itself is
actually a rudderless organization where various ideas are attempted with
little effort to analyze the effectiveness of any one policy. Some policies or
decisions within these bureaucracies may even conflict with each other.
Explaining
Bureaucracy
Virtually
every segment of American industry, business, and to a lesser degree, social
interaction, either is or has been influenced by some aspect of the American
bureaucracy. Communications, transportation, agriculture, work environments,
all are affected, either directly or indirectly, by regulations typically
established by either an executive or regulatory agency. Several arguments have
been made since the evolution of the American bureaucracy seeking to explain
why they exist, and why they seem to wield the greatest and most direct
authority over the daily activities of most Americans. Generally speaking,
however, these arguments tend to resemble one of three basic explanations:
The
Complexity Argument takes up the mantle of Max Weber, John Dewey, and
subsequent policymakers. This argument holds that as American society has grown
more complex over the last two centuries, the government has sought to keep up
with that complexity. This explanation calls for an expert administration of
public policy for the sake of promoting the general welfare and ensuring
domestic tranquillity in the United States. As various industries in the
private sector have grown in complexity, the Congress realized the need to
regulate these industries for the sake of American citizens. They also came to
understand that Congress itself would be unable to pass informed laws affecting
individual components of those industries, for such laws would require every
elected official to demonstrate expertise in every area affected by the laws
they passed. Furthermore, specific bills containing minute regulatory details
would become so cumbersome that Congressmen and committee staff alike would be
unable to navigate them, and the wheels of legislation would grind to a halt As
a result, Congress began to establish general guidelines or goals in their
legislation, and created executive agencies responsible for meeting those goals
through implementation.
The
Political Argument seeks to explain the size and influence of government
bureaucracy through the interactions among the interests and institutions
involved in the formation of public policy.
Because
Congressional acts often tend to frame policy goals in vague terms, except in
the establishment of a regulatory agency to enforce legislation, the federal
bureaucracy has become a major source for decision making concerning public
policy. Since the bureaucrats have gained considerable power in the last
century there has been a development of considerable controversy regarding the
proper role for such decision making. An iron triangle, or three-way
alliance among legislators, bureaucrats and interest groups (or even individual
constituents) seeks to make or preserve policies that benefit the interests of
those who participate.
In
the above example, Congress sets up a bureaucracy to provide a service, the
benefits of Social Security, to the constituents. The qualifying constituent receives
the service and is generally satisfied with that service, so he re-elects the
Congressman who supports the agency. However, if the Agency for whatever reason
fails to provide the service, (say, a retired citizen qualifying for Social
Security benefits fails to receive his check) the constituent may exert
pressure on the Congressman to remedy the situation. The Congressman in turn
exerts pressure (usually budgetary pressure) on the agency to fix whatever
internal problem prevented the service from being provided. If the problem is
remedied and service to the constituent is restored, the constituent as voter
may act favorably towards the Congressman and support him in the next election.
With enough similar support the Congressman is re-elected, and he may support
continued or even expanded budgetary consideration for the agency in question.
The agency would generally favor an increase in their budget, partly to sustain
their day-to-day activities, and partly to continue providing their service to
the constituent. In this way all participants in the triangle are satisfied.
Under an
iron triangle bureaucrats no longer act as impartial administrators. Instead
the bureaucrats may act as agents, either for a special interest, attempting to
influence Congress to enact laws generally favorable to the groups they serve
or regulate, or else for legislators, providing their own agencies as an
indirect instrument whereby a Congressman can gain support for a re-election
campaign. This phenomenon is generally referred to as capture.
A third
argument, the Self-Perpetuation Argument, generally recognizes that once
established, bureaucratic institutions are difficult to dismantle, and tend to
expand as a result of a basic impulse to survive. As these institutions grow,
they become more powerful, wielding increasing influence over the areas of
public policy they were intended to regulate or administer. Such agencies
produce lobbyists who pressure Congress either to expand or maintain the
agencies' budgets or staff. When their regulatory purpose is exhausted through
shifts in legislation, these agencies may endure in an advisory capacity to
Congress, the President, or even other bureaucracies. This argument is often
used to explain why the Interstate Commerce Commission, originally set up in
the 1880s to establish rules and regulations regarding the transport of goods
across state lines, continued to have a budget and a staff for eleven years
after the trucking industry was deregulated in 1980.
Tools of
Bureaucracy.
Most
bureaucracies have at their disposal several tools for the execution of public
policies legislated by Congress. Nominally a part of the executive branch,
bureaucratic agencies may, in the course of the implementation of public
policy, begin to resemble the institutions defined by the Constitution itself.
Implementation typically involves the development by a bureaucracy of specific
rules and subordinate agencies to carry out the sometimes vague directives
issued by Congress. These regulations have the force of law, and the
bureaucracy usually defines the means of enforcement as well as the penalties
for any violations. Those who are penalized by an agency typically may
challenge the penalty by appealing to an adjudicative agency with the bureaucracy
itself. In this way, a bureaucracy can be seen to incorporate legislative,
executive and judicial components. It is this character especially which draws
the greatest criticism, either on the grounds that such power is either
redundant or illegitimate.
Bureaucracies
may also exercise administrative discretion in cases that do not fit the
general routine of regulation. Here an agency may make exceptions and exercise
flexibility in the manner in which regulations are applied in specific cases. A
case may also be subject to administrative discretion if it fits several rules
or when Congress pressures the agency to exercise restraint or to expedite a
particular case. (See the Iron Triangle Model)
Types of
Federal Bureaucracies
In 1789 the
size of the federal bureaucracy was extremely small in comparison to the size
of the current bureaucracy. Most of this growth has been attributed to the
expansion of the role of government, particularly in the twentieth century.
Much of this growth occurred following the implementation of Franklin
Roosevelt’s New Deal programs. Today, the federal bureaucracy can be divided
into four basic categories:
Regulating
Bureaucracy
Difficulties
have been encountered over the years concerning the staffing of the
bureaucracy. Historically, the bureaucracy has been staffed by individuals of
the party of the president. The first political party, the Federalists, held
the early positions for the first twelve years of the government. When Thomas
Jefferson was elected, he replaced many of the officers with members of his own
party. Andrew Jackson was credited, or rather blamed, for furthering this
tradition in 1828 with the so-called "spoils" system, whereby the
bureaucrats from a previous administration, especially those who refused to
implement the new president’s policies, were fired.
Reform of
the bureaucracy selection process began in 1883 with the Pendleton Act, which
established the Civil Service Commission. Civil servants were to be selected
based on merit rather than political affiliation. Further reform came in 1939
with the passage of the Hatch Act. This act prohibited civil servants form
participating in political campaigns. It sought to ensure a neutral
bureaucracy, and sought to protect civil servants from being pressured for
political contributions. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 abolished the
Civil Service Commission, putting in its place two important bureaucratic
entities: the Office of Personnel Management, which oversees the recruitment
and hiring of civil service workers, and the Systems Protection Board, which
hears civil servant complaints.
Ultimately,
the bureaucracy must answer both to the president and Congress. Congressional
control of the bureaucracy is especially significant since Congress establishes
agencies and departments in the first place. Congress holds the "power of
the purse," meaning that Congress ultimately authorizes and appropriates
the funds necessary to keep the bureaucracy running. In addition, Congress may
oversee the bureaucracy through investigations and committee hearings to
determine whether or not bureaucratic agencies are performing according to
Congressional intentions. Finally, the Judiciary may hold bureaucratic power in
check. When a regulatory or adjudicative decision is challenged in federal
court, the court itself will typically focus on whether or not the agency in
question overstepped the authority granted to it by Congress, and whether or
not the agency abided by the principle of "procedural fairness"--
full disclosure of regulation, notice of hearings, channels of appeal, or
administrative discretion.
Overall,
because of the numerous procedures bureaucracies establish for themselves, and
because of the battery of specialized attorneys at their disposal,
bureaucracies typically enjoy great success in defending their actions in
court. Furthermore, litigation is expensive, and most individuals do not have
the resources to challenge a bureaucratic decision for long; businesses and
other interest groups must also weigh the costs of litigation versus the
benefits of a judicial decision in their favor. A long delay in court
proceedings may ultimately cost more than a victory in court.
Public
Policy
All of the
institutions of government--Congress, the Presidency, the bureaucracy, and the
courts --have a role in the steering of the nation's affairs. The act of making
decisions, establishing rules and regulations relative to this steering (or
government, from the Latin gubernare--to steer) is referred to as public
policy. While public policy may incorporate every aspect of American life, it
generally may be divided into four major categories: Domestic Policy, Economic
Policy, Foreign Policy, and Defense Policy. While these areas of policy may be
generally divided, however, the distinctions may become less clear when dealing
with specific policy decisions.
Public
policy may also be understood in terms of the process by which policies are
formed and reformed--the public policy cycle. This process is typically framed
in terms of a problem-solving process whereby problems are identified and
addressed. A substantial variety exists in the specific means by which the
public policy cycle moves, depending on the area of policy to be considered;
but the process itself may be understood as having five steps.
The first
step in the policymaking process is to identify a problem. Numerous problems
exist, but until they are identified as problems by policymakers, they cannot
be addressed. This typically occurs through public debate, but policymakers may
also rely on their environments--constituents, associates, interest groups, and
media--to bring policy problems to their attention
Once a
problem has been identified, the reaction to that problem and the solutions
applied to a problem are a part of the public policy cycle:
