Bureaucracy in the United States
Bureaucracy Definition
A government by departments, each under a chief; a word to describe the system used in an invidious sense. (1) A bureaucracy is a systematic way of organizing a complex and large administrative structure. The bureaucracy is responsible for carrying out the day-to-day tasks of the organization. The bureaucracy of the federal government is the single largest in the United States, with 2.8 million employees. Bureaucracies generally follow three basic principles:
- hierarchical authority – similar to a pyramid, with those at the top having authority over those below;
- job specialization – each worker has defined duties and responsibilities, a division of labor among workers; and
- formal rules – established regulations and procedures that must be followed
History and Growth
Main points:
- Beginnings – standards for office included qualifications and political acceptability
- Spoils system – practice of giving offices and government favors to political supporters and friends
- Reform movement – competitive exams were tried but failed due to inadequate funding from Congress
- Pendleton Act – Civil Service Act of 1883, passed after the assassination of Garfield by a disappointed office-seeker; replaced the spoils system with a merit system as the basis for hiring and promotion
- Hatch Act of 1939, amended in 1993 – prohibits government employees from engaging in political activities while on duty, running for office or seeking political funding while off duty, or if in sensitive positions, may not be involved with political activities on or off duty
- Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 – created the Office of Personnel Management (replaced the Civil Service Commission) to recruit, train and establish classifications and salaries for federal employees
Organization
The federal bureaucracy is generally divided into four basic types:
- cabinet departments – 15 executive departments created to advise the president and operate a specific policy area of governmental activity (Department of State, Department of Labor, Department of the Interior); each department is headed by a secretary, except the Department of Justice, which is headed by the attorney general
- independent executive agencies – similar to departments but without cabinet status (NASA, Small Business Administration)
- independent regulatory agencies – independent from the executive; created to regulate or police (Securities and Exchange Commission, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Federal Reserve Board)
- government corporations – created by Congress to carry out business-like activities; generally charge for services (Tennessee Valley Authority, National Railroad Passenger Corporation [AMTRAK], United States Postal Service)
Influences on the Federal Bureaucracy
- executive influences – appointing the right people, issuing executive orders, affecting the agency’s budget, reorganization of the agency.
- Congressional influences – influencing appointments, affecting the agency’s budget, holding hearings, rewriting legislation or making legislation more detailed.
- iron triangles (subgovernments) – iron triangles are alliances that develop between bureaucratic agencies, interest groups, and congressional committees or subcommittees. Because of a common goal, these alliances may work to help each other achieve their goals, with Congress and the president often deferring to their influence.
- issue networks – individuals in Washington-located within interest groups, Congressional staff, think tanks, universities, and the media-who regularly discuss and advocate public policies. Unlike iron triangles, issue networks continually form and disband according to the policy issues.
Bureaucracy in the United States Constitution
According to the Encyclopedia of the American Constitution, the Constitution creates an executive branch that neatly fits into the separation of powers and checks and balances system that the Framers devised. But the Constitution does not explicitly provide for the kind of administrative branch, or bureaucracy, that evolved. (…) The Constitution fails to provide for the largest and one of the most important components of American government, the bureaucracy. The Framers understood that the presidency could not function without a group of persons comparable to the English servants of the crown.
Executive Departments
With date of creation:
♦ State (1789) – advises the president on foreign policy, negotiates treaties, represents the United States in
international organizations
♦ Treasury (1789) – collects federal revenues, pays federal bills, mints coins and prints paper money,
enforces alcohol, tobacco and firearm laws
♦ Defense (1789) – formed from the Department of War and the Department of the Navy (1789) but
changed to the Department of Defense in 1947; manages the armed forces, operates military bases
♦ Interior (1849) – manages federal lands, refuges, and parks, operates hydroelectric facilities, manages
Native American affairs
♦ Justice (1870) – provides legal advice to the president, enforces federal laws, represents the United
States in court, operates federal prisons
♦ Agriculture (1889) – provides agricultural assistance to farmers and ranchers, inspects food, manages
national forests
♦ Commerce (1903) – grants patents and trademarks, conducts the national census, promotes international
trade
♦ Labor (1913) – enforces federal labor laws (child labor, minimum wage, safe working conditions),
administers unemployment and job training programs
♦ Health and Human Services (1953) – administers Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid Programs,
promotes health care research, enforces pure food and drug laws
♦ Housing and Urban Development (1965) – provides home financing and public housing programs,
enforces fair housing laws
♦ Transportation (1967) – promotes mass transit programs and programs for highways, railroads, and air
traffic, enforces maritime law
♦ Energy (1977) – promotes development and conservation of fossil fuels, nuclear energy, research
programs
♦ Education (1979) – administers federal aid programs to schools, engages in educational research
♦ Veterans Affairs (1989) – promotes the welfare of veterans of the armed forces
♦ Homeland Security (2002) – prevents terrorist attacks within the United States, reduces America’s
susceptibility to terrorism, minimizes damage and helps recovery from attacks that do occur; includes Coast
Guard, Secret Service, Border Patrol, Immigration and Visa Services, and Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA)
Bureaucracy in the International Business Landscape
Definition of Bureaucracy in the context of U.S. international business and public trade policy: An organization that carries out day-to-day policy, uses standardized procedures, has a hierarchy, and is based on specialized duties.
Concept of Bureaucracy
In the U.S., in the context of Presidency and Executive Power, Bureaucracy has the following meaning: A system of administration (either public or private) characterized by specialization of functions, action according to fixed rules, and hierarchy of authority. Nonelective government officials are often referred to as “the bureaucracy.” (Source of this definition of Bureaucracy : University of Texas)
Bureaucracy
Bureaucracy and Reform in relation to Building Civilian Interagency Capacity for Missions Abroad
This section discusses generally the subject of Bureaucracy and Reform in the above context, reporting on the key problems and reform proposals, offering the essential facts of the topic and in relation with Reform Proposals.The difficulties in fostering interagency collaboration should not be underestimated. According to one expert on interagency cooperation, “Almost nothing about the bureaucratic ethos makes it hospitable to interagency collaboration. The collaborative ethos values equality, adaptability, discretion, and results; the bureaucratic ethos venerates hierarchy, stability, obedience, and procedures. Making the transition from an existing way of doing agency business to a new and more collaborative way requires actors to withdraw at least temporarily from the bureaucratic ethos. They must spurn something they may have at least respected if not cherished…. They must adopt the stance that purpose should dictate structure rather than allow structure to dictate purpose [29].”
Note: Based on the Building Civilian Interagency Capacity for Missions Abroad: Key Proposals and Issues for Congress Report.
Resources
Notes and References
- 29 Eugene Bardach, Getting Agencies to Work Together: The Practice and Theory of Managerial Craftsmanship (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1998), p. 232.
Further Reading
- Heritage 2005—Heritage Foundation, Winning the Peace: Principles for Post-Conflict Operations, by James Carafano and Dana Dillon, June 13, 2005.
- Heritage 2008—Heritage Foundation, Managing Mayhem: The Future of Interagency, by James Carafano, March 1, 2008.
- Lamb/Marks 2009—Lamb, Christopher J. and Edward Marks,), Chief of Mission Authority as a Model for National Security Integration, Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS), October 2009.
- SIGIR 2010—Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. Applying Iraq's Hard Lessons to the Reform of Stabilization and Reconstruction Operations, Arlington, VA, February 2010.
- Smith 2010—Dane F. Smith, Jr., Organizing American Peace-Building Operations, Praeger (in cooperation with the Center for Strategic and International Studies), Santa Barbara, CA, 2010.
- ACTD 2007—U.S. State Department Advisory Committee on Transformational Diplomacy, Final Report of the State Department in 2025 Working Group, 2007.
- Brookings/Center for Strategic and International Studies 2010—Brookings Institution and Center for Strategic and International Studies. Capacity for Change: Reforming U.S. Assistance Efforts in Poor and Fragile Countries, by Norm Unger and Margaret L. Taylor, with Frederick Barton, April 2010.
- Buchanan/Davis/Wight 2009—Buchanan, Jeffrey, Maxie Y. Davis, and Lee T. Wight, “Death of the Combatant Command? Toward a Joint Interagency Approach,” Joint Force Quarterly, no. 52 (1st quarter 2009).
- PNSR 2010—Project on National Security Reform, The Power of People, 2010.
- QDR 2006—U.S. Department of Defense, Quadrennial Defense Review Report, February 6, 2006.
- CGD 2004—Center for Global Development Commission on Weak States and U.S. National Security. On the Brink: Weak States and U.S. National Security, May 2004.
- CGD 2007—Center for Global Development. The Pentagon and Global Development: Making Sense of the DoD's Expanding Role, November 2007.
- Center for Strategic and International Studies/Association of the U.S. Army 2003—Center for Strategic and International Studies and Association of the U.S. Army, Play to Win: Final Report of the bi-partisan Commission on Post-Conflict Reconstruction, January 2003.
- QDRIP 2010—Quadrennial Defense Review Independent Panel, The Quadrennial Defense Review in Perspective: Meeting America's National Security Needs in the 21st Century, The Final Report of the Quadrennial Defense Review Panel (Report mandated by Section 1031(f) P.L. 109-364, the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for FY2007, as amended by Section 1061, P.L. 111-84, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2010), 2010.
- RAND 2009—RAND, Improving Capacity for Stabilization and Reconstruction Operations, by Nora Bensahel, Olga Oliker, Heather Peterson, Sponsored by the Department of Defense, Santa Monica CA, 2009.
- CWC 2011—Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan, Transforming Wartime Contracting: Controlling costs, reducing risks, Final Report to Congress, August 2011.
- DSB 2004—Defense Science Board, Summer Study on Transition to and from Hostilities, December 2004.
- Flournoy/Brimley 2006—Flournoy, Michele A. and Shawn W. Brimley, Strategic Planning for National Security: A New Project Solarium, Joint Forces Quarterly, Issue 41, 2nd quarter, 2006.
- Schnake/Berkowitz 2005—Schnake, Kori and Bruce Berkowitz, National Security: A Better Approach, Hoover Digest, No. 4, 2005.
- SFRC 2007—U.S. Congress, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Embassies Grapple to Guide Foreign Aid, 2007.
- NDU 2004—National Defense University, Transforming for Stabilization and Reconstruction Operations, 2004.
Pope 2010—Pope, Robert S., Lt. Col., USAF, “U.S. Interagency Regional Foreign Policy Implementation: A Survey of Current Practice and an Analysis of Options for Improvement”, (A Research Report Submitted to the Air Force Fellows Program, Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base, AL, April 2010), belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/Files/Pope_10_AFF_Reearch_Paper_FINAL-2022.pdf.
- PNSR 2008—Project on National Security Reform, Forging a New Shield (Report mandated by Section 1049, P.L. 110-181, National Defense Authorization Act for FY2009), November 2008.
- PNSR 2009—Project on National Security Reform, Turning Ideas Into Action, September 2009.
- Stimson/American Academy of Diplomacy 2011—The Henry L. Stimson Center and The American Academy of Diplomacy, Forging a 21st-Century Diplomatic Service for the United States though Professional Education and Training, February 2011.
U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century (known as the Hart/Rudman Commission), Phase III Report, Road Map for National Security: Imperative for Change, February 15, 2001.
- Williams/Adams 2008—Williams, Cindy and Gordon Adams, Strengthening Statecraft and Security: Reforming U.S. Planning and Resource Allocation, MIT Security Studies Program, Occasional Paper, June 2008.
- Cerami 2007—Cerami, Joseph R. “What is to be Done? Aligning and Integrating the Interagency Process in Support and Stability Operations, in The Interagency and Counterinsurgency Warfare: Stability, Security, Transition, and Reconstruction Roles, edited by Joseph R. Cerami and Jay W. Boggs, U.S. Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute, Carlisle Barracks, PA, December 2007.
Council on Foreign Relations 2005—Council on Foreign Relations, In the Wake of War: Improving U.S. Post-Conflict Capabilities, Report of an Independent Task Force, Task Force Report No. 55, September 2005.
- Council on Foreign Relations 2009—Council on Foreign Relations, Enhancing U.S. Preventive Action, Council Special Report No. 48, October 2009.
- QDR 2010—U.S. Department of Defense, Quadrennial Defense Review Report, February 1, 2010.
- QDDR 2010—U.S. State Department and United States Agency for International D
evelopment, The Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, Washington, DC, December 2010. - Center for Strategic and International Studies 2004—Center for Strategic and International Studies, Beyond Goldwater-Nichols Phase I, 2004.
- Center for Strategic and International Studies 2005—Center for Strategic and International Studies, Beyond Goldwater-Nichols Phase II, 2005.
- Center for Strategic and International Studies 2007—Center for Strategic and International Studies, Integrating 21st Century Development and Security Assistance, 2007.
- RAND/American Academy of Diplomacy 2008—RAND and the American Academy of Diplomacy, Integrating Instruments of Power and Influence: Lessons Learned and Best Practices, Report of a Panel of Senior Practitioners, 2008.
- RAND/American Academy of Diplomacy 2006—RAND and the American Academy of Diplomacy, Integrating Instruments of Power and Influence in National Security: Starting the Dialogue, Conference Proceedings, 2006.
Resources
See Also
- Presidency
- Executive Power
Resources
Notes
This definition of Bureaucracy Is based on the The Cyclopedic Law Dictionary