The Federal Bureaucracy

HideShow resource information
View mindmap
  • The Federal Bureaucracy
    • Components
      • The federal bureaucracy grew during the 20th century – as the size of the federal government expanded – was brought about by a number of developments. 
      • -The federal bureaucracy is the administrative system of the nation government that carries out policy – also an over excessive red tape, delay, over-manning, inefficiency and waste. 
      • -By 2006 – it had 2,720, 688 civilian employees – these employees aren’t all in Washington – only 11% of federal civil servants work in Washington. 
      • -The federal bureaucracy is spread throughout the country – almost every city has a headquarters. 
      • -the federal bureaucracy can be split into four broad categories – executive departments (there are 15), executive agencies, independent regulatory agencies and government corporations. 
    • Functions
      • Creating rules
        • -legislators usually only establish the broad principles of policy – it is left to the federal bureaucracy to write the specific rules that decide how laws will be executed. 
        • -The growing complexity of society had led to the greater need for specialist bureaucrats to create specific rules – it is in this function that the regulatory commissions of the federal government play a significant role. 
      • Adjudication
        • executing laws and carrying out rules – disputes will arise
        • -One party will consider that a law is not being applied enough, while the other will consider that it needs to be applied more or isn’t being done fairly. 
          • -It is therefore the job of the federal bureaucracy to adjudicate in such disputes. 
    • Cons
      • Clientelism
        • -agencies tend to sever the interests of those who they are suppose to be overseeing. 
          • -This is seen as a particular problem with the regulatory commissions – these are watchdog agencies but often turn into lapdogs – special interests are protected at the expense of public interest.
      • Imperialism
        • agencies want to expend their powers and responsibilities and will do this at the expense of other agencies
          • -Political interest will become dominant, sometimes regardless of public opinion. 
        • -Imperialism sometimes manifests itself in ‘turf battles’ – who has jurisdiction over which policy area. 
      • Parochialism
        • -agencies will tend to focus on their own goals rather than the ‘big picture’ – or on the administration as a whole. 
          • -Department interest usually gets priority at the expense of the nation interest. 
      • Instrumentalism
        • -most of the agencies in the federal bureaucracy act slowly and cautiously – not liking change. 
          • -This can be frustrating for a new president who wants to introduce radical policy change. 
          • -They are seen as very conservative and too resistant to change. 
      • Arbitrariness
        • -when applying rules and regulations – the concerns and merits of those who will be effected are often ignored. 
        • -The bureaucracy is often seen as inhuman and over-committed to the form and process. 
      • Waste
        • -their size and dedication to routine often mean that they use resources less efficiently than private sector organisations. 
        • e.g. $16 for  muffin, very high salaries despite recession
      • Iron triangles
        • -this is the strong relationship between three bodies; special interests (usually pressure groups), the relevant congressional committee and the relevant agency. 
          • -This can often result in policies being made and executed to the mutual benefit of those three bodies – excluding public interest. – this had a negative effect on the process. 
            • -Eg. defence contractors, the House and Senate Armed services Committees and the Defence Department – this iron triangle resulted in a large national defence budget.
      • Going native
        • -There is always a fear in the White House that political appointees in the federal bureaucracy ‘going native’  this means that rather than imposing the president’s wishes they start to resist his changes. 
      • Inefficiency
        • -this is a widespread belief – many think this is largely because the pay of a civil servant is determined more by length of service than the quality of their work. 
          • -Eg. this is shown clearly in the response of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to hurricane Katrina and Rita in 2005. 
    • Pros
      • Act as a check on the President
        • If departments went along with the President rather than fighting their corner, then the country would change massively every four to eight years

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Government & Politics resources:

See all Government & Politics resources »See all Multilevel governance resources »