Bureaucracy

A Budget is a management tool that is an expression of planned expenditures and revenues. “Budgets serve many important functions in government.

In one sense, budgets are contracts annually agreed on by the executive and legislative branches that allow executive agencies and departments to raise and spend public funds in specified ways for the coming fiscal year, as stated by Stillman in “The American Bureaucracy” He also says that budgets impose a mutual set of legal obligations between the elected and appointed officers of public organizations with regard to taxation and expenditure policies, therefore, is a legal contract that provides a vehicle for fiscal controls over subordinate units of government by the politically elected representatives of the people.

Budgetary decisions are made, according to Rubin in her book The Politics of Public Budgeting, by envisioning governments as “not merely technical managerial documents” but rather “they are also intrinsically and irreducibly political. ” Her ideas are similar to that of general budget concepts over balancing expenditures and revenues, but differ in fundamental ways according to Stillman.

The open environments within which budgets are developed, the variety of actors involved, the constraints imposed as well as the emphasis on public accountability, give budgets special and distinctive features in the public sector. ” The differences between microbudgeting and macrobudgeting are just what their prefaces imply. “On the one hand there are a number budget actors, who have all individual motivations, who strategize to get what they want from the budget. The focus on the actors and their strategies is called microbudgeting.

They do not bargain with one another over the budget. They are assigned budget roles by the budget process, the issues they examine are often framed by the budget process, and the timing and coordination of their decisions are often regulated by the budget process, according to Rubin. She goes on to say that actors are not free to come to budget agreements alone. They are bound by the environmental constraints.

There are decisions that they are not permitted to make because they are either against the law, the courts disagree, or previous decision makers have bound their hands. Budgetary decision making has to account not just for budgetary actors but also for budget process and the environment. This more top-down and systematic perspective on budgeting is called macrobudgeting. ” Budget strategies are affected by environment, budget process, and individual strategies, all of which influence the outcomes.

The level of certainty of funding influences strategies as well. “Attention will focus on what is available now, and going after whatever it is, whether it is what you want or not, because what you really want may never show up and hence is not worth waiting for. “The effect of different strategies on the outcomes is hard to gauge. It seems obvious, however, that strategies that ignore the process or the environment are doomed to failure. Budget actors have to figure out where the flexibility is before they can influence how that flexibility will be used. Strategies that try to bypass superiors or fool legislators generally do not work; strategies that involve careful documentation of need and appear to save money are generally more successful. “

There are four phases of a budget cycle; environment, process, individual strategies, and outcomes. In this causal model, or schema, the environment, budget process, and individuals” strategies all affect the outcomes. “The environment influences budgetary outcomes directly and indirectly, through process and individual strategies. The environment influences outcomes directly, without going through either budget process or individual strategies, when it imposes emergencies that reorder priorities. “

The environment influences the budget process in several ways, including the level of resources available, the format of the budget, and the degree of centralization of decision making. “Environment in the sense of the results of prior decisions may also influence process. ” “Changes in process take place in response to individuals, committees, and branches of government jockeying for power; in response to changes in the environment from rich to lean, or vice versa; in response to changes in the power of interest groups; and in response to scandals or excesses of various kinds. “

Fundamental to the design of the developmental state for these countries was the creation of an alliance between politics and the economy, which materialized In the establishment of a specialized bureaucratic apparatus that had ample powers and coordinated the developmental efforts, at least in their initial stages. The developmental state and its associated policies are not unique to Japan or East Asia. A similar type of model, albeit a more restrictive one, was also followed in Latin America during the period that lasted from he end of World War II to the beginning of the asses and, in some cases, the asses.

During this time, the state Intervened in a number of areas and Indeed made use of fiscal, exchange rate, monetary. And sector’s polices to promote the Industrialization of Latin America. Neither are developmental state policies a feature limited to the twentieth century. European countries used the same policies throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and the United States during the Estates Praze Calculate Is an Economic Affairs Officer at the Economic Commission or Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAT) In Santiago, Chile.

The opinions here expressed are the author’s and might not collude with those of ECLAT.  International Journal of Political Economy nineteenth century. Moreover, other regions such as Latin America did very much the same thing in the second half of the nineteenth century. The available historical record suggests in fact that the developmental state and its associated policies are a recurrent feature of government policy during different historical times, under different circumstances, and in deferent geographical locations.

Notwithstanding the recognized successes of the developmental state, the Latin America debt crisis of the asses, the spread of globalization, and the East Aslant financial carols In 1 997, Jointly called into question its usefulness. As things stand, the developmental state has been overtaken by a state preoccupied with macroeconomic stability, property rights, and contract enforcement and partial intervention in education, health, and pensions. A General Characterization of the Developmental State The term developmental state refers to a state that intervenes and guides the direction and ace of economic development.

The developmental state is mainly associated with the type of economic policies followed by East Asian governments in the second half of the twentieth century and, in particular, with the post World War II Japanese economic model. L Central to the developmental effort in the case of Japan was the creation of the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MIT) in 1949. Initially it coordinated the “Policy Concerning Industrial Rationalization,” which sought to counteract the deflationary regulations of the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers.

The MIT as also given the power to negotiate the price and conditions for the import of technology through the approval of the Foreign Capital Law. In 1952, the MIT gained further preponderance as it took effective control of the rights to import merchandise and of the foreign exchange budget. The effective control of imports led the government to adopt a system of import control for the protection of domestic industry. For its part, the control of the foreign exchange budget allowed it to stimulate and foster export growth.

The MIT also widened and cheapened the access o credit facilities through the establishment of the Japan Development Bank. The Japan Development Bank pursued a credit policy to develop key domestic in- fall 2008 29 dustier (energy and metal production). This policy was complemented by a very generous lending policy involving both the Bank of Japan and commercial banks. This fostered vertical and horizontal concentration of firms producing the keiretsu, an industrial conglomerate reminiscent of the earlier subtask (Coates 2000). The example of MIT was followed by other “late industrialization” countries such as South

Korea. Following the end of the Korean War (1950-53), the South Korean government pursued a government-led, export-oriented policy. Following the example of Japan’s MIT, it created the Ministry of Commerce and Industry through the adoption of the first five-year plan (1962-66). Through the ministry of commerce and, in particular, the recently created Economic Planning Board, the elected government adopted an exchange rate policy that combined periodic devaluations and export subsidies to make the exchange rate competitive for local producers. The management of the exchange rate regime was accompanied by the control of credit policies and financial resources. Toward this end, the government nationalized the major banks of the country, which allowed it to supply cheap credit to targeted industries. Finally the manipulation of interest rates was used to induce firms to change production techniques. As in the case of Japan, the adoption of developmental policies fostered the concentration of industry.

Developmental state policies were not conceived as 1950 and 1960, the state intervened to engineer and monitor the industrial catch-up process of Japan. In the asses and asses, the developmental guidance became more indicative and turned to the creation of export industries, the production of consumer durables, and the creation of technologically sophisticated consumer products. Finally, in the asses, the MIT turned its attention to the development of high-growth technology industries. At this developmental stage, the MIT turned to tax incentives and public-private sector collaboration.

At the same time, it had to deal with industries that were “structurally depressed” such as textiles, sugar refining, cardboard, chemicals, steel, and others (Coates 2000: 213-23). In the case of South Korea, the first two five-year Economic Development Plans centered on the establishment, identification, and perfecting of state instruments and on self- reliance. The third plan (1971-75) focused on the “dynamic development of the rural economy, a dramatic and sustained increase in exports and the establishment of heavy and chemical industries” (Lie 1998: 52).

At this stage, the focus of the Korean developmental state turned to corporate growth through the establishment of chasubles (family-owned conglomerates) that ended up controlling a significant share of the economy of South Korea. Later on during the asses, the development of a high technological industry captured the attention of the government. This brief sketch of government intervention in two source cases, Japan and South Korea, highlights some of the key features underpinning the notion of the developmental state. 3 First, the developmental state was conceived as an interventionist state.

Second, this did no imply that it made heavy use of public ownership. Rather, the developmental state tried to achieve its goals through a set of instruments such as tax credits, breaks, subsidies, import controls, export promotion, and targeted and direct financial and reedit policies instruments that belong to the realm of industrial, trade, and financial policy. Third, the degree and type of government intervention varies over time in scope and content. It can depend on different factors, such as external/ internal circumstances, and on the life cycle of the industry the state is trying to develop.

For example, in the asses Japan adopted a more open economic stance; it reduced its tariff and looked toward administrative guidance instruments to pursue its “developmental policies. ” In the same vein, Kimono (1989) goes further, arguing for a time pattern state intervention. He argues that state intervention in Japan was much more pronounced at the early and later stages in the life cycle of the products. State intervention was needed at the early stages to develop the product and the later stages to scrap the declining industries.

Fourth, the developmental state requires the existence of a bureaucratic apparatus to implement the planned process of development. More to the point, as in the case of Japan’s MIT or South Koreans Economic Planning Board, the developmental state requires a pilot agency to oversee apparatus requires a “meritocracy bureaucracy’ capable of formulating policy and assessing the required freedom and lack of interference to apply it; or, as Johnson said, the developmental state requires that the “politicians reign and that the bureaucrats rule” (1982: p. 316).

Finally, the developmental state requires the active participation and response of the private sector to state intervention. 31 The Developmental State in the Early History of Currently Developed Countries Initially, the developmental state was viewed as a type of development strategy followed by the late industrialization countries to catch up with more developed ones. As stated by Coates, “in economies seeking to make up for lost ground on already existing capitalists powers, it was quite common to find that the state itself led the industrialization drive, that is, it took on developmental functions” (2000, p. 2). However, as it has been shown more recently by Ha-Jon Change (2002, 2008) and Ramrod (2003), the developmental state and its associated policies were also present in the early developmental history of currently industrialized economies. According to Change (2002, 2008), at an earlier stage in their history, currently, industrialized economies used a combination of interventionist industrial, trade, and technology policies to foster the development of their own incipient industries and stimulate a catch-up processes.

These strategies involved the active use of subsidies, tariffs, infant industries, and other protectionist measures such as distribution of monopoly rights. In addition, these strategies contemplated the development of national capacities through research, development, education, training, stimulus to foreign technology acquisition, and public-private cooperation practices. These strategies re summarized in Table 1 for a few selected European nations (Britain, the United States, Germany, and France).

As can be seen from Table 1, Britain used the most comprehensive and varied set of instruments to promote its industrialization and world predominance. Of the European nations considered here, Britain was also the country that adopted a protectionist policy for the longest period (235 years). In the United States, the developmental state at this stage was much more limited in scope and functioned basically through the enactment of tariff laws to protect determinate infant industries.

Tariffs were reduced on an industry when the industry in question had become firmly established and independent of duties for its financing. The cotton industry is a case in point (see Table 1). 4 For their part, France and Germany used a host of instruments to stimulate industrial development, but their implementation pned a shorter period of time (thirty-two and seventy-three years in the cases of France and Germany, respectively) than that of Britain or the United States. 32 France Country Import substitution industrialization.

International missions, import of skilled labor, import duties, export bans on raw wool. Period Policy Instrument Britain Henry evil (1485-1509) Elizabeth I (1558-1603) Build naval supremacy. No monarch (1649-60) Charles II (1660-85) James II; interregnum (1685-88) The Navigation Act (1651) was revised in 1660 and expanded in 1662, 1663, 1670, and 1673. It initially prevented the Dutch from participating in carrying trade to English ports. Later on, it ensured that English ports were the origin of exports of all goods to English colonies. William Ill and Mary Stuart (1689-1702) Protect the domestic wool and cotton industry The Wool Act (1699) limited wool production in Ireland. It forbade the export of wool yarn or wool cloth from any American colony either overseas or from international trade. It also banned imports on Indian products. Permanent withdrawal of the Merchants Adventurers’ corporate monopoly (1689). Banned imports of cotton products. From 1700 on, applied subsidies, tariff rebates, selective prohibition of imports and exports to linen, canvas, and sailcloth. Maintain the Hanoverian dynasty.

Promote manufacturing industries through the reform of the mercantile system (1721) Overall trade tariffs increased by four-fold between 1690 and 1704. Reduced import duties on raw materials; increased tariff rebates on imported raw materials for export manufactures; abolished export duties; increased duties on imported manufactures; extended export subsidies to include goods other manufactured products. Manchester Act (1736). George I (1714-27) George II (1727-60) the United States 1789 The tariff act of 1789 was Adopted the first tariff with rates ranging from 5 “protective in intention percent to 15 percent (8. % average). 2 and spirit” (Tautest 1910: 8) This tariff responded to the need to service the war debt fall 2008 1816 Adopted a tariff with a 25 percent rate on most textiles and 30 percent on most manufactured goods. In 1818, it was decided that the 25 percent duty rate should remain in force until 1826 and not decline to 20 percent in 1819 as originally planned. (Tautest 1910: 11, 14). (continued) Table 1 (continued) Policy Protect domestic industry Extended protection to goods manufactured from wool, iron, hemp, lead, and glass.

The cotton industry was not protected at this stage because it was “firmly established and almost independent of support by duties” (Tautest 1910: 47). Tariff on abominations. Significantly increased duties on cost raw materials including hemp, flax, and wool. The Tariff Act of 1829 changed tariffs from an ad valor system to an ad valor-specific duty system. (Tautest 1910: 57). Established duties on imported cotton and woolen goods, iron, and other goods. It applied low or no duties on articles produced in the United States (silk, tea, and coffee). The average rate was 33 percent.

Amber Clayton Weber and Simmel’s Take on Power and Conflict Jon Witt, explaining Max Weber’s theory on resources of power, was not surprised at the fact that students do not use the party resource to fight for better tuition costs, because of the individualistic society of the United States. This fits into conflict theory because the school would be considered a rational-legal authority. The students “give in” to the rules and perceived rights of the school to raise tuition costs. As Jon Witt said “there are reasons… for why people should do what they are told to do. If the school did not charge the students money then they would not be able to pay the teachers and professors to educate them. This idea fits into the broader theory because Witt’s claim about the US being individualistic is not expanded in this chapter, but it is in previous ones. In chapter 4, Witt mentioned “…we combine extreme interdependence (due to specialization) with a strong sense of individualism (tied to a weak collective conscience). We depend on each other more than ever, but we realize it less. In an article by Margaret Foster, she asks 70 college presidents “can you school continue to attract students at its current rate of tuition growth? ” and 80% said yes. This tells me that students are simply following the rational-legal authority of the bureaucratic schools, choosing to accept the higher charges and taking out higher loans. The students most likely do this because they are too weak as individuals to do anything about it or they assume the school leaders are making these decisions because they have no other choice (bad economy, budget cuts, ect).

George Ritzer claims that the unpredictability of human error has led to a desire for greater control and the replacement of human with nonhuman technology. The idea of companies (bureaucracies) replacing humans with technology to ensure efficiency fits into Weber’s theory of formal rationality. As Ritzer explains “[Fast-food chains have] employed all the rational principles pioneered by the bureaucracy and is part of the bureaucratic system because huge conglomerates now own many of the fast-food chains.

McDonald’s utilized bureaucratic principles and combined them with others, and the outcome is the process of McDonaldization. ” Ritzer backs his claim up with multiple examples and evidence. One of which being the replacement of human communication over the telephone. Companies force people to go through a string of “press 1 for yes or 2 for no”s before they even talk to a real person. In some cases, the person doesn’t speak to a real person at all. Although annoying, people just excuse it away as a consequence of living in our technological world. This idea is expanded in an article by Karen Korzep.

She outlines the advantages and problems with TeleHealth (medical technology) and the resistance among people to a total technological take-over. She explains in her conclusion that “just because the technology exists, does not mean that everyone will be accepting to it… [however] [i]n my opinion, it will be at least one more decade before we see this technology take over and really have an effect on jobs. ” Therefore, even though people may have resistance to the technology and worry that it will affect jobs negatively, the technology will still, most likely, take over in time.

William J. Staudenmeier, Jr. claims in his chapter about Georg Simmel’s theories on social drinking that when a member of the group buys a round of drinks, the others would not simply pay them money, because “treating… has to do with personal relationships, and it is not strictly an economic exchange. ” This idea fits into conflict theory because the taverns are becoming more and more bureaucratic with rules and regulations that the consumers must follow or face the consequences (kicked out or banned for fighting or over drinking).

Instead of backing his claim up with evidence, Staudenmeier expands on the idea by saying “the ‘surplus of satisfaction’… comes from the value of giving and receiving in a group in which such actions and the thought of such actions make us feel good and make us feel a part of the group. This is outside the narrow cash nexus of economic exchange because what is calculated here is not mere profit and loss. ” The issue of teenage pregnancy and how it fits into this theory is best addressed in an article by Linda Arms Gilbert.

She outlined a study done by the Franklin Heights Federal Housing Project in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. The Murfreesboro Housing Authority partnered with the police department to help rid the projects from drug-related behaviors by developing positive relationships with the Franklin Heights families. The police department made over 500 contacts, creating a positive working relationship between the families and law enforcement as well as informed residents willing to provide tips against drug-related behaviors.

The Parks and Recreation Department started an after-school program for 8-13-year old students, which included educational leisurely activities and an after-school tutoring program. A Parents as Teachers Program was started that allowed teen mothers to connect with their children. The program “held group meetings to help young parents understand the emotional, physical cognitive needs of their young children and to form a community of teen mothers who could offer support to each other. In the end “Franklin Heights has taught an entire city about the importance of collaboration and has shown what can be accomplished when individuals and agencies choose to look beyond the borders of their own job descriptions and departments to see the needs of families within that community. ” The point is that, even in a bureaucratic society where, typically, rational-legal authority does not think about the well-being of their “workers” (in this case, the people who require government assistance), there can be an authority who thinks beyond what is efficient and profitable and helps the issue of teenage pregnancy, drug use, and violence. ——————————————- [ 1 ]. John Witt, The Big Picture: A Sociology Primer (New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. , 2007) p 89 [ 2 ]. Witt, p 86 [ 3 ]. Witt, 59 [ 4 ]. FOSTER, MARGARET. “Sticker Shock. ” American Scholar 82. 1 (2013): 120. Academic Search Premier. Web. 2 Mar. 2013. [ 5 ]. George Ritzer, “The Weberian Theory of Rationalization and the McDonaldization of Contemporary Society”, Peter Kivisto, ed. , Illuminating Social Life: Classical and Contemporary Theory Revisited, 4th ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press, 2008), p 52 [ 6 ].

Ritzer, p 45 [ 7 ]. Ritzer, p 54 [ 8 ]. Korzep, Karen. “The Future Of Technology And The Effect It May Have On Replacing Human Jobs. ” Technology & Health Care 18. 4/5 (2010): 353-358. Academic Search Premier. Web. 2 Mar. 2013. [ 9 ]. Korzep, p 357 [ 10 ]. William Staudenmeier, Jr. , “Alcohol-Related Windows on Simmel’s Social World,” Kivisto, 109 [ 11 ]. Staudenmeier, Jr. , p 110 [ 12 ]. Gilbert, Linda Arms. “The Teen Pregnancy Dilemma: A Different Solution. ” Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin 73. 3 (2007): 5-8. Academic Search Premier. Web. 2 Mar. 2013. p 3 [ 13 ]. Gilbert, p 3

For years, Canadians have stood by and watched as officials of the Canadian government have been questioned, accused and held up for public scrutiny on issues of misappropriation of funds, personal and public scandals, and inappropriate departmental spending of taxpayers’ dollars. In the public eye, Ministers abused their public authority and were inadequately serving the public.

Lack of confidence was evident when election time arrived and voter turnout was dismal at best. In 2008, the lowest voter turnout on record was at 58. 8% and most recently, voter turnout has been 61. 4%, the third lowest in Canadian history. Public perception of government, from Prime Minister down to department clerk, has held a lack of confidence. There was a need for enforceable measures to be put in place to make certain responsibility, answerability and accountability were at the forefront of government ministries.

Stephen Harper ran his 2006 “Stand up Canada” campaign stressing accountability in government. “For those Canadians seeking accountability the question is clear: which party can deliver the change of government that’s needed to ensure political accountability in Ottawa? We need a change of government to replace old style politics with a new vision. We need to replace a culture of entitlement and corruption with a culture of accountability. We need to replace benefits for a privileged few with government for all. ” The mantra paid off and the disheveled Liberal party was ousted from power.

Prime Minister Harper promised the Canadian people corruption would end and backroom deals would be history. The first bill tabled by the newly-elected Conservative government, Bill C-2, was the Federal Accountability Act, introduced by President of Treasury Board, John Baird, and was passed by the House of Commons on June 22, 2006, by the Senate on November 9, 2006, and granted royal assent on December 12, 2006. The Act and Action Plan provided conflict of interest rules, restrictions on election financing and measures respecting administrative transparency, oversight and accountability.

Based on Britain’s Westminster model for responsible government, Canada’s Parliament has a responsibility to hold the government to account, as well as all Ministers, collectively and individually. While senior bureaucrats in public service are not directly accountable to Legislature, they are directly accountable to superiors of their department, internal government authorities, and the courts. Accountability should be the responsibility of those who have the greatest opportunity to control departmental situations.

Therefore, it is not reasonable to blame Ministers for the actions of their Department, as it is the Deputy Ministers and Senior Bureaucrats who run the day to day operations of Ministerial departments and influence not only the development of policy, but the implementation of policy. At the root of Canada’s parliamentary structure is the British model for a responsible government known as the Westminster model, whereby a Cabinet Minister bears the ultimate responsibility for actions of his Ministry or department.

Before a law can be passed, the symbolic monarch, in Canada’s case the Queen, a lower house of members elected by citizens and the upper house of appointed members, must approve legislation. The principle of a collective agreement remains, regardless of how legislation procedures may vary. This doctrine is the principle for a responsible government and accountability is essential to guarantee that an elected official is answerable for actions made. There is no common model for accountability however the Westminster system relies on Ministers being accountable in the House of Commons and to the electorate.

The functioning of government management depends on the democratic principle of accountability for all elected officials. Ministers are career politicians and hold the majority of power and authority within the democratic government, after the Prime Minister. At the top of the hierarchy, in the Westminster model, is the Minister, followed by the Deputy Minister, departmental management and then front line public servants. Accountability flows upward and the degree of responsibility depends on how much authority has been delegated to a particular individual within the organization.

Accountability enforces and enhances responsibility. Being able to understand each official’s responsibilities, one must recognize there are different components to consider. There are two different types of Ministerial responsibility, collective and individual. These two terms are “separate but interrelated unwritten rules of behaviour in the operation of parliamentary government. ” Collective Ministerial responsibility is a constitution convention that dictates the prime Minister and the Cabinet must publicly support all government decisions, or suppress any criticism.

In any case a Minister cannot hold true to this, they must object and ask the governor general for the act of ending parliament, if the House of Commons passes a vote of non-confidence. If they are not willing to endure this process, they must announce their resignation. On the other hand, individual responsibility refers to a Minister who holds a Cabinet office, which has the obligation to take responsibility of the policies they introduced. The responsibility still has to be accepted by the Minister “even if the minster did not approve an action in advance or had no knowledge of it. In a “nutshell” it means, “the minster is responsible for everything done in the department. ” Major components of individual responsibility consist that Ministers will be held accountable or even forced to resign if any serious administrative errors occur within their department. Another traditional component is that the Minister must summarize and be willing to support the actions, to the presence of parliament, which his or her department is pursuing. Governments tend to be left with the messy, complex, and difficult jobs – and the messy, complex, and difficult results are harder to define and measure. ” It is hard to pinpoint responsibility in the government, whether it be collectively or individually, because there will always be criticism and complexities arising within parliament due to the difficulty in these jobs. Black and white answers are non-existent when it comes to implementation of policies and procedures on how to run the government and attend to the public.

The reasoning behind it is due to the fact that one cannot judge or assess the exact results that will affect both the short and long term outcomes. The path for finding the individual(s) who must be held accountable for said actions may be described as being intricate, because of the difficulty of first finding who is responsible. When looking at the hierarchy within the government, you realize senior bureaucrats have more authority than you are lead to believe.

Stephen Harper has tried to pursue to answer these black and white answers by taking the steps to distinguish and strengthen responsibility. Some of Stephen Harper’s initiatives in “Stand up for Accountability” were strengthen auditing and accountability within departments. The sponsorship scandal first came to light in an internal audit – an audit that the Liberals initially tried to cover up. Under the Liberals, the lines between Ministers and non-partisan civil servants have been blurred, and clear lines of accountability need to be re-established.

The Conservative government will give the Comptroller general overall authority for internal audit function in each government department, designate the Deputy Minister of each government department or agency as the Accounting Officer for that department, which that Deputy will be responsible to Parliament for the departmental spending and administrative practices of his or her department. Also, in the event of a disagreement between a Minister and Deputy Minister on a matter of administration, the Minister must provide written instruction to the Deputy Minister and notify the Auditor General and Comptroller General of the disagreement.

The position of Deputy Minister in the Canadian government is one of the most contentious and vital appointments. Their responsibilities are both political and non-partisan as they function between the non-partisan civil service and the political realm of executive and elected officials and executives. Deputy Ministers are accountable to the Minister, the government, their Ministry, agencies, and Parliament. They provide Ministers advice that comes from the civil service, and they also “carry out” any delegations of authority that come from the Minister.

Appointment to Deputy Minister is at the Prime Minister’s discretion and likewise, being relieved of their duties is the same, at the Prime Minister’s discretion. Senior bureaucrats service the government and as one Deputy Minister stated, “As soon as he assumes his duties, the Minister signs a delegation of authority for me, and then I become the person responsible to him… and the person in command. ” It is a “relationship full of paradoxes. ” “The most important player in the Canadian political system” are “extremely busy people. “Dealing with Prime Minister’s priorities, implementing the government’s agenda, protecting the Minister, networking with other deputies, the provincial governments, and the department’s stakeholders, articulating and promoting the department’s interests, as well as managing political crises can consume much of a Deputy’s ten to twelve hours. ” Accountability is always a topic for discussion as senior bureaucrats hinge between political and non-partisan. What is clear is that, “Deputy Ministers are not accountable to the public or to Parliament. They are accountable to the Prime Minister, and to a lesser extent their Minister, the clerk of the Privy Council, the Treasury Board, and the Public Service Commission. ” Overall, [for Deputy Ministers] “the lines of accountability are not clear nor are performance measurements, despite extensive literature that shows how difficult it is to evaluate performance in government. ” Government hierarchy stature insists that the higher power be held accountable, although it should not always be the case.

Cabinet Minister, appointed by the Governor General on behalf of the Queen, are the head of government departments. Each department has some type of specialization, whether it is law, trade, foreign affairs, or finance. These members of parliament are chosen for their portfolio because they are supposed to be the “best qualified” to assist the prime Minister in running the country of Canada. However, the reality is that most are chosen either because of a personal relationship with the prime Minister, or because they lend the right balance to the Cabinet as far as ethnicity, gender or geographic location.

As a result, the Minister’s appointment can be disguised as “qualified” thus leaving the Canadian people with a false hope that they are right for the job. Most Cabinet Ministers are not qualified to handle the department, mentally or intellectually, and rely heavily on the Deputy Minister to handle the day-to-day operations. “It is Deputies and not Ministers who actually manage the departments of government. And that’s the way it should be. Ministers have neither the time nor (as a rule) the skills to manage large institutions. Furthermore, senior bureaucrats hold office impartially, over the years serving different political parties, and are qualified bureaucrats with a considerable amount of knowledge, experience and time served. Regardless of who is in office, a Deputy Minister must be neutral and non-partisan in order to get all bureaucrats to achieve the goals of the Minister and the ruling party. As leading management under the Minister, there is ample opportunity and authority for senior bureaucrats to alter the vision bestowed upon the department by the Minister and change opinions and actions of the other bureaucrats.

Senior bureaucrats are allocated to manage and administer directly under the law, because of these expectations, Parliament should hold them accountable for the performance of their duties and implementing their authority. The article about authority and accountability has given great insight and is the most compelling when determining how officials are elected and the real responsibilities each department/individuals carry. Not only does the article show the specific details to being a Cabinet Minister, but also talks about the civil servants and the Privy Council Office.

The Privy Council Office (PVO) is the highest ranking bureaucratic agency in Canada, very important and powerful, and the Clerk of the Privy Council, known as the “Secretary to Cabinet” is head of the public service of Canada. The Clerk serves as the “spokesman of the bureaucracy” to the executive branch in the Canadian government and is appointed by the Prime Minister. One duty is to swear in the Prime Minister, which is somewhat of a symbolic gesture confirming the relationship between the two offices.

Like the Deputy Ministers, the Privy Council Office is supposed to be non-partisan, and their advice and recommendations are technical and professional in nature. The Prime Minister is not always in favor of the PVO and has his own alternative organization, the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), headed by the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff, which advises and coordinates the Cabinet and bureaucracy mostly on the basis of ideology, partisanship, political strategy and public image.

Since the PVO and the PMO have two significantly different objectives, it is safe to say the two networks of advisers do not always get along. The PMO has eclipsed the PCO in terms of relevance and power, and the question is whether the era of non-partisan advisers is over. Much of this was due to the perception amongst many in the public, and some members of parliament, that “the executive had rule over Parliament, but the civil service had rule over the executive. “Governments indiscriminately added functions, tasks, and accountability requirements to the machinery of governments without rewriting the traditional bargain. ” Further, “governments now tend to concentrate some policy and decision-making authority with a few key officials, who carry an unmanageable burden, but they also defuse authority on other issues to the point that accountability evaporates. ” The problem can be summarized as follows: “Political and policy actors have lost the sense of the traditional space that they are expected to occupy.

MPs no longer call the government to account; Ministers are not making policy; the prime Minister, the Prime Minister’s Office, the Privy Council Office, and a handful of senior Ministers now fill more functions than they should; and the public service is increasingly uncertain about its role in policy and management. ” Bureaucrats administer and implement the laws and policies of the Government of Canada and, in that capacity, should not act unethically even if they believe what they are doing is justifiable.

The sponsorship scandal, under the Liberal Government, was a good indicator that the public does not accept anyone in power act unethically in order to promote unity amongst the nation. Canadians were outraged that trust was abused and ending the Liberal reign sent a loud message that the end does not justify the means when tampering with public interest. Bureaucrats have to embrace their role and not blindly follow their Minister’s wishes or never say anything negative about the position they hold. Senior bureaucrats need to be accountable for their actions and their recommendations.

If they come under fire, they cannot be shuffled off to another Ministry until the storm passes and they cannot hid behind their superior to take blame for wrongdoings they may have initiated or caused. As the Clerk of the Privy Council observed in the Twelfth Annual Report to the Prime Minister on the Pubic Service of Canada, “We cannot tolerate breaches of the law or of our core value and ethics…but we cannot build systems based on distrust. We cannot go backwards, building layers of hierarchy and rules governing each transaction. And we cannot treat all errors the same way.

Errors made in good faith are inevitable, especially in an organization that values innovation and creativity. Accountability requires that we report honestly and accurately, including the errors, and demonstrate that we have learned from the mistakes and have made the necessary adjustments. But accountability cannot become mere blaming. ” Evidently, Canadians are concerned with the accountability held within the government. Although there are a number of institutional checks and preventive measure, they lack improvement and overall outcomes.

Other counties have tampered and improved their accountability through various laws and initiative, logically Canadian should consider replicating their process. Thus, government individuals should be held responsible and ultimately accountable if they have the best opportunity to alter their department substantially. Through various studies, one can conclude that senior bureaucrats are the ideal representatives to impose and instill changes within their departments, as well as the whole government.

Senior bureaucrats have three main ethical responsibilities as public servants: First, they are responsible to act non-partisan when carrying out or implementation of policies. Second, they are seen as trustees for the Canadian citizens and, therefore, they have a fiduciary responsibility not to abuse their trust. Third, their duty is to account for both their activities and decisions. It is extremely easy for the public to make Minister’s obvious scapegoats and set them up for criticism and ridicule due to their position on the hierarchy.

As depicted, senior bureaucrats are the officials with the most responsibility and hands-on participation within their department, managing personnel, implementing policies and ensuring the public interest’s are met on a daily basis. Regardless of how long a Minister holds his portfolio or is in power, it is the senior bureaucrat who maintains their position and ensures their Minister is held in high esteem with informed and experienced expertise about departmental operations.

Through traces of systematic accountability, failures demonstrated within the government leads one to conclude that the political outcomes remain the same because the solutions come from the same sphere.

Work Cited

1. Barker, P. 2008. Public Administration in Canada. (Breif ed. , p. 75). Thomson Canada Limited Bourgault, Jacques.
2. “The Deputy Minister’s Role in the Government of Canada:? His responsibilities and His Accountability. Ottawa: Commission of Inquiry into the Sponsorship Program and Advertising Activities, 2006 “Federal Accountability Act.
3. ” Department of Justice. (2006). http://laws-lois. ustice. gc. ca/eng/acts/F-5. 5/page-1. html (accessed July 12, 2012).
4. Harper, Stephen. “Conservative Party of Canada Federal Election Platform. ” Stand Up for Canada. (2006). http://www. cbc. ca/canadavotes2006/leadersparties/pdf/conservative_platform20060113. pdf (accessed July 7, 2012).
5. “Leadership of the Prime Minister’s Office. ” Parliament of Canada. (1867). http://www. parl. gc. ca/parlinfo/compilations/federalgovernment/PrincipalSecretaries. aspx (accessed July 14, 2012).
6. Mitchell, James. “Authority and Accountability: Reflections on the Gomery Project. ” Authority and Accountability. 2006). https://docs. google. com/viewer? a=v&q=cache:GOZMy1NFFsgJ:www. sussexcircle. com/pdf/020-Authority&Accountability. pdf &hl=en&gl=ca&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjm7kZ3AA0QiX70tXxByNLjoEbXx0roBI3x9NvKnl8a8JMKU1107T1MOioQzsFdHy4cuUndPyvRd5vGwvZohdqmZCzpqAEA8Zr4q3TQfRyXWivb90p3DMRRJRRd6ykvc8AXwm6z&sig=AHIEtbRagPHJJ_7fhv5zDOT9NC8IwgwrGw (accessed July 11, 2012).
7. Mulgan, Richard . “The accountability of Community Sector Agencies: a comparative framework. ” (2001). http://www. hapinternational. org/pool/files/acctcommsect. pdf (accessed July 11, 2012).
8. Pomfret, R. Voter Turnout at Federal Elections and Referendums”. Elections Canada Online. Elections Canada. (accessed February 10, 2012).
9. Savoie, Donald. Breaking the Bargain: Public Servants, Ministers, and Parliament. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002.
10. “Twelfth annual report to the Prime Minister on the Public Service of Canada. ” Clerk of the Privy Council. (2005). http://www. clerk. gc. ca/eng/feature. asp? mode=preview;pageId=201 (accessed July 12, 2012).
11.  Pomfret, R. “Voter Turnout at Federal Elections and Referendums”. Elections Canada Online. Elections Canada. Retrieved February 10, 2012.
12. Harper, Stephen. “Conservative Party of Canada Federal Election Platform. ” Stand Up for Canada. (2006). http://www. cbc. ca/canadavotes2006/leadersparties/pdf/conservative_platform20060113. pdf (accessed July 7, 2012).
13. “Federal Accountability Act. ” Department of Justice. (2006). http://laws-lois. justice. gc. ca/eng/acts/F-5. 5/page-1. html (accessed July 12, 2012).
14.  “Federal Accountability Act. ” Department of Justice. (2006). http://laws-lois. justice. gc. ca/eng/acts/F-5. 5/page-1. html (accessed

Grey offers a number of opinions on management thought in his book “A Very Short Fairly Interesting and Reasonably Cheap Book about Studying Organisations” (2009). He outlines his opinions through a number of themes within the book such as looking at bureaucracy and scientific management together, his views on human relations theory (HRT) and its links with people management, the theme of organization culture and post-bureaucracy and how it is effecting change management.

The final theme I will discuss in my essay is fast capitalism and how it is ending management. While looking at the themes I will also be evaluating Grey’s arguments within them and try to relate them where applicable to Wren and Bedeian’s book “The Evolution of Management Thought” (2009). Grey views on bureaucracy are that he sees it as a highly efficient way of management in this book bureaucracy is not seen as red tape but a management type as put forward by Weber whereby rules and regulation are used to become as efficient as possible.

Relevant materials:

Grey tells us how Weber saw an emergence of an ideal called “rational legal authority” (Grey, 2009). Grey tells us how rationality links with bureaucracy using a number of examples such as formal or instrumental rationality the idea of this is to adopt a means to meet and end using the most efficient way possible. Grey uses an excellent example to illustrate this being the Nazi Holocaust it is as Grey (2009) says the extreme application of bureaucratic logic. It operated under a set of rules which were applied impersonally.

This allowed it to be unbelievably efficient. Grey’s ideas on bureaucracy are linked to the ideas explored in Wren and Bedeian’s “The Evolution of Management Thought” (2009) both books emphasise how Weber did not mean red tape when he said bureaucracy, they also share similar views of the disadvantages of bureaucracy such as how workers will work to the rules and therefore know exactly what they must do to stay in the job or to achieve something Grey’s view on scientific management as put forward by Taylor is that his ideas still define management today.

The real leap for scientific management as explained by Grey (2009) was the use of it by Henry Ford the man who made Ford cars. He employed scientific management within his factory to increase efficiency and it did so hugely. Grey also recognises the problems caused by Taylor’s ideas. Such as the many strikes by workers as it left the workers with less power and the managers with all the power, one of the main problems with it as explained by Grey (2009) is it eroded working onditions, reduced autonomy and threatened unemployment. I feel that Grey’s view here focuses too much on the problems caused by scientific management he does give a few advantages of it but he doesn’t emphasise enough how scientific management really revolutionised the way in which factories and companies operated such as how using Taylor’s ideas on scientific management thought companies such as General Motors and Du Pont have become two of the biggest corporations in the world thanks to it.

Wren and Bedeian share similar views to Grey on scientific management however I feel they show more admiration for it when they say how scientific management paved the way forward for subsequent management development (Wren and Bedeian 2009). Grey (2009) expresses his view many people see scientific management as the bad guy and human relations theory (HRT) as the good guy. I agree with this and Grey uses the Hawthorne experiment example which I feel expresses this view correctly and helped me understand the inefficiency’s caused by HRT.

He tells us of an experiment in a bank wiring room where workers were producing electrical components and rather than produce at maximum output which would earn them a bonus they choose to produce at a lower level. This was due to informal norms set around the workplace such as peer pressure and an unofficial gang leader. This shows us that the informal side of an organisation to some is more important than the formal side. This shows how HRT can be seen as inefficient as and not always better than scientific management.

This can be linked to Wren and Bedeian’s (2009) conclusions drawn from the Hawthorne Studies, they conclude that these experiments showed us that workers were not driven only by money but also by social factors which can lead to increased and decreased productivity. People management and HRT are very similar in my opinion as HRT is the way in which we manage people. It is important for people to see a manager as someone who helps people and not just a person who exploits someone to get the best work out of them.

Grey (2009) gives an example of how HRT has changed the way we view managers by using a son and father conversation. The child asks his dad what he does and he replies how he exploits people and dehumanises them by making them work as hard as possible. Under HRT thought he replies how he helps people and makes unhappy people see that he cares about them. This example by Grey is exceptional in my opinion and to me it personifies what HRT and people management is; it is type of thought whereby the manager’s aim is to care for and motivate his workers.

The view of the manager is undeniably hugely important to motivating workers as if they are seen as caring and helpful it acts as an incentive to workers to work harder this view is also shared in Wren and Bedeian (2009) where they say the significance of effective supervision in maintaining employee’s productivity and job satisfaction is huge. Grey’s (2009) view on organisation culture is that its aim is to intervene and regulate being so that there is no distance between individual’s purpose and those of the organisation for which they work.

I agree with what Grey is saying here organisation culture to me is simply making an organisation a place where the worker feels completely comfortable and for the worker to feel proud to work for the company. An example of this I can relate to is the bank RBS having done work experience with them I now understand how they create organisation culture. On all their leaflets, cards and employee videos they try to show their core values and company slogans to create a good organisation culture. Grey argues that managers who try to change organisation culture are completely unrealistic.

I agree with what Grey says here as the example he uses shows us how it is not possible. He cites an experiment carried out by Ogbonna and Wilkinson (1988) where a supermarket told all its employees to make customer service their prime focus by smiling all the time and to make them feel valued. The study results showed they obeyed superficially because they knew they were being watched but they didn’t mean their shows of friendliness. This may seem like they are carrying out the organisation culture but actually they have failed as they don’t actually believe in it.

In relation to Wren and Bedeian’s view on organisation culture differs to that of Grey they see it as more innocent and with less scepticism than Grey does. They (Wren and Bedeian 2009) believe technology, economics and political facets provide the framework for organisation culture. Wren and Bedeian don’t go into the areas that Grey goes into when discussing organisation culture such as how management tries to change organisation as I have discussed already. Grey (2009) argues that post-bureaucracy can and should be mocked.

He gives examples of studies which have been carried out to show that it is a flimsy thought. He cites a study by Paul Thompson who used aggregate statistical evidence and individual cases to prove that job structures and work experience are mostly unchanged by the post-bureaucratic revolution. This study was similar to that of Delbridge (1998) who studied two factories one which had all the paraphernalia of a post-bureaucratic workplace and one which did not. He concluded that both still shared very similar forms of working.

I agree with what Grey is saying here as if you walk into a workplace today such as a factory the methods of management are still evident of the bureaucracy model and yes there is some evidence of post-bureaucracy but not enough to claim it’s a new era of post-bureaucracy. On the theme of change management Grey (2009) argues that is almost always fails. He supports his claim using the example of total quality management (TQM) which is implemented for the first time in a certain industry. One organisation may adopt it and then others will see it and decide to adopt it to.

Now no one has a competitive advantage and there is a conveyer effect where by the companies now want a new method and therefore change. This claim by Grey in my opinion is correct change management doesn’t work as for it to work something has to be applicable from one industry to another but change management fails at this. Grey (2009) however does admit that post-bureaucracy and change management cannot be ignored and that it is a huge part of society today as they have a huge hold over the managerial role in today’s world. Grey (2009) tells us how the post-bureaucracy and change management attract huge attention in the media today.

He gives us the example of policies past by the British Government in which all are based on post-bureaucracy. Grey (2009) says how it is now assumed that for an economy to do well it must be purged of bureaucracy and open to change. I agree with what he has said here all we here about in today’s news is the need to change everything and for rules and regulations to be got rid of. However all we have to look at is the current economic climate to show us what happened when there was less bureaucracy and lots of change. People took advantage of it and we are now stuck in a recession for a number of years because of it.

To show what fast capitalism is Grey (2009) uses the United Kingdom as an example and many of the companies within it such as Jaguar, P&O and Body Shop what all these companies have in common is they once used to be British owned now however they are owned by international companies or consortia. This shows us how Britain has taken on the idea of fast capitalism this however can lead to problems whereby the international companies who buy these smaller firms most of the time only see the financial value of them and not what the company may offer to a community with generations of families who have worked in the same business.

This can lead to employees not feeling the need to work as hard as now they are working for an international company and therefore in my opinion inefficiency will begin to take place. The argument that fast capitalism is failing and problematic is put forward by Grey (2009) using the example of the bank Northern Rock who began by simply taking in deposits from savers and lending to borrowers for house purchases. In 1997 they choose a new more risky route whereby they raised money by through short term borrowing on financial markets.

They also began to give loans to those who had poor credit history and they didn’t take in their account to pay them back. This was all well and good until 2007 when poor credit risks and the inability to get short term funds caused the bank to nearly collapse with customers going to the banks to take out all their money. The bank was then nationalised in 2008. This story shows me how fast capitalism failed as those who ran Northern Rock tried to adopt a new style of management and thought within the business to keep up with fast moving capitalism and in the long run their ideas failed leaving the customers and shareholders to suffer greatly.

Grey (2009) puts forward the argument that management is ending. He explores this idea using a number of examples. The example which explores it best is the one about the study he carried out with a number of colleagues on a set of managers. They interviewed them and none of them described themselves as managers. When ask why they didn’t they all said it was an overused word which didn’t denote any real seniority in today’s workforce and secondly they felt the word had a meaning of someone who was inflexible and bureaucratic. This was not to say the end of management just it has become a somewhat meaningless word.

The final thought Grey (2009) has on this is that managers might be coming to an end but management itself is not and it is constantly evolving and I whole heartedly agree with this point that it is simply changing constantly. Overall I feel that the themes in Grey’s book “A Very Short Fairly Interesting and Reasonably Cheap Book about Studying Organisations” (2009) which range from looking at bureaucracy and scientific management together to his views on human relations theory (HRT) and its links with people management and the theme of organization culture and post-bureaucracy and how it is effecting change management.

To the final one which I have explored; fast capitalism and end management have provided me with an insight into Grey’s thoughts on management and the arguments he has put forward about it. I also feeling my reading of this book has allowed me to relate it where applicable to Wren and Bedeian’s “The Evolution of Management Thought” (2009) and allowed me to compare some of the older views on management within this book to the more modern ones explored by Grey. However I do believe that Grey’s book is far more concise than Wren and Bedeian’s which I feel is too long winded and less interesting than Grey’s.

Bibliography: Grey, C. (2009). A Very Short, Fairly Interesting and Reasonably Cheap Book about Studying Organizations. London, Sage. Delbridge, R. (1998) “Life on the Line in Contemporary Manufacturing” Oxford: Oxford University Press, Ogbonna, E. and Wilkinson, B. (1988) “Corporate Strategy and Corporate Culture: The View from the Checkout” Personnel Review, Vol. 19 Iss: 4, pp. 9 – 15 Wren, Daniel A . Bedeian Arthur G. December 2008, ©2009. “The Evolution of Management Thought. 6th Edition”. USA: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

CCOT From 100 C. E to 1000 C. E there were many changes along with continuities in the political and cultural life of the Chinese peoples. For example a big change in the political life of China was a series of nomadic invasions. A large continuity in bureaucracy may have changed just a little bit but it was always present in China. Through its history a big continuity in Chinese culture could be Confucianism. Even though Confucianism does not disappear, Buddhism becomes very popular when the Han Dynasty collapses and nomadic tribes invade offering hope in light of chaos.

There were many changes in political history of China. A large change was the nomadic invasions of China. It caused the Han Dynasty to collapse and endless wars. It also gave women more rights because Buddhism brought better living conditions for women and believed women were as equal parts, which let Buddhism spread. Bureaucracy was a large continuity in Chinese political life. Many emperors lived under a bureaucracy, which in turn meant that people under the emperor’s rule dealt with bureaucracy.

In 220 C. E, when the nomadic peoples were invading China, and endless wars led the collapse of the Han Dynasty, the concept of Confucianism does not agree with chaos the Chinese looked to Buddhism that “offers hope in the light of chaos” although Confucianism does not disappear the expansion of Buddhism in Chinese culture is a big change. Confucianism was very popular throughout Chinese history. It is still practiced today and will continue to be practiced.

Confucianism has set rules and roles for everyone in Chinese society because Confucius saw people getting along by being content with the roles they played in society. Its rules and roles did not go very well in chaos, which is why Buddhism became very popular in 220 C. E. Even though Confucianism lost power it still remained in many Chinese households. Continuities and changes are inevitable in Chinese history whether it be culturally or politically. Buddhism and nomadic invasions were large changes, but Confucianism will always be in the Chinese culture and bureaucracy will also be a big continuity.

Bureaucracy is the structure and set of regulations in place to control activity, usually in large organizations and government. As opposed to adhocracy, it is represented by standardized procedure (rule-following) that dictates the execution of most or all processes within the body, formal division of powers, hierarchy, and relationships. In practice the interpretation and execution of policy can lead to informal influence.

Of the most famous political persons responsible for the making of bureaucracy, and its effects on society would be Max Weber, the German sociologist who set the course of the field in foundations of Administration and Politics. Weber established there were three different types of authority which helped to set the stage of public administration and helped to direct the forms of government which exist today. The three types of authority that dominate the governmental and societal settings of the present are traditional, charismatic, and legal rational.

The third type of authority is the type which we are most familiar with. Legal rational authority dominates the modern world, and can easily be thought of as a closed system of regulations and rules forming a bureaucracy. This authority is purely devoted to impersonal and functional purposes, thus giving the perfect stage for bureaucracy, where all focuses are impersonal and functional alone. “… the bureaucratic system of organization is primarily characterized by the existence of a series of relatively stable vicious circles that stem from centralizations and impersonality” (Crozier, 1964, p 193)

Bureaucracy in Educational Organizations Bureaucracy manifests itself in schools in the several ways. One key feature of a bureaucratic organization is presence of a formal hierarchical structure. Each level in a bureaucracy controls the level below and is controlled by the level above. A formal hierarchy is the basis of central planning and centralized decision making. In the school setting, the school head teacher tops the hierarchy, followed by his deputy. The teachers come next, then the prefect. The students lie at the bottom of the hierarchy.

A bureaucracy runs by some well defined rules. Controlling by rules allows decisions made at high levels to be executed consistently by all lower levels. In the school, there are certain rules that students are supposed to abide by. The teachers also have a general code of conduct which they are supposed to observe. In a school, there is functional specialty. Every teacher has a special subject that he/she teaches, and is not expected to venture into other subjects. This is another key feature of a bureaucracy.

Another characteristic of a bureaucracy is purposeful impersonality, whereby the idea is to treat all employees equally and customers equally, and not be influenced by individual differences. In the school, a school head is not supposed to talk to his children, who attend the school, about family matters. He is supposed to act like he does not know them in any other way apart from that they are his students. A school can therefore be said to be a typical bureaucracy. During volunteer work at Thika Primary school, I noted several cases in which bureaucratic tendencies of the school, led to compromised results

How Bureaucracy Causes Poor Results In Schools Bureaucracy has been hailed as an excellent system of management in the organizations. In fact, no single system of administration has been adopted more widely that the bureaucratic system. Unfortunately, the system has largely failed to impress in education institutions, especially the academic institutions. During the course of volunteer work, this fact was manifested in a number of cases. Bureaucracy in school leads to a situation whereby students find it extremely difficult to secure audience with the head teacher.

This is because, for a student to report a problem to the head teacher, he has first to report to the class prefect, who informs the teacher. The teacher informs the deputy head teacher, who consequently forwards the issue to the head teacher. In this case, addressing the problem takes a painstakingly long period of time. If the issue required fast action, the intervention might come too late. The student ends up bearing the brunt of a bureaucratic system, which reflects negatively on his academic performance.

This case was evident in Thika Primary School, whereby several children admitted to have sought audience with the head teacher, with little success. Another negative consequence of bureaucracy notable is in the procurement of learning resources. The process of purchasing books for the school takes too long, since approval must be sought from the head teacher, who takes the issue to the board of governors for a final decision on whether to place a tender. The tender is advertised and awarded to a book distributor.

This whole process can take more than one school term, delaying the time that the students have to interact with the books. This consequently leads to poor results. At the time of volunteer work, several story books had been ordered for purchase, but the process was taking too long. Bureaucratic practices in academic institutions also dent school student performance, whereby students are given insufficient feedback of their performance in a term. Here, the rules oblige the head teacher to write his feedback on the student’s performance, in the report form.

However, due to the large numbers of students, he is not able to follow up the individual performance of each student. What he does to fulfill his obligation is fill all the report forms with the same comment, for example, ‘fair’. The student ends up not well guided on how well or bad he has performed. In such a case, he does not know whether he is faring poorly and needs to improve, or is performing well and needs to improve. This leads to bad grades in the subsequent terms. Conclusion It is important that schools abandon bureaucratic tendencies that lead to poor academic performance of the students.

The head teacher must ensure that he is approachable, not seated in some hierarchically elevated seat. Process of purchasing learning resources must be made faster and simpler. Once such steps have been taken to streamline how schools run, the performance of the schools will improve, and the students will be able to achieve their academic goals and career ambitions References Bureaucracy. Anti Essays. Retrieved October 23, 2008, from the World Wide Web: Crozier, M. The Bureaucratic Phenomenon . 1964. London: Tavistock Publications. http://www. antiessays. com/free-essays/1895. html www. wikipedia. org/bureaucracy