The  Bureaucracy    

Important  Things  to  Remember  •  1.  The  federal  bureaucracy  is  a  complex  web  of  federal  agencies  with  overlapping  jurisdic?ons  

•  2.  Most  view  the  bureaucracy  as  wasteful,  confusing,  and  rigid  

•  3.  The  federal  bureaucracy  grew  drama?cally  as  a  result  of  the  Great  Depression  and  WWII  

•  4.  Federal  agencies  have  substan?al  power  in  seIng  policy  

•  5.  The  characteris?cs  of  bureaucrats  generally  reflect  those  of  the  American  public  

•  6.  Congressional  oversight  is  an  important  check  on  the  powers  of  the  bureaucracy    

•  7.  The  bureaucracy  has  been  called  the  “fourth  branch  of  government”  even  though  it  is  not  men?oned  anywhere  in  the  Cons?tu?on  

•  8.  Presidents  have  generally  been  powerless  to  affect  the  structure  &  opera?on  of  the  federal  bureaucracy  significantly    

•  9.  Legal  basis  for  bureaucracy?  – Ar?cle  II,  sec?on  2  gives  POTUS  “all  other  officers  of  the  United  States,  whose  appointments  are  not  herein  otherwise  provided  for.”    

– Ar?cle  II,  sec?on  3  states  that  POTUS  “shall  take  care  that  the  laws  be  faithfully  executed,  and  shall  commission  all  the  officers  of  the  United  States.”  

What  is  the  bureaucracy?    •  Def-­‐  a  systema?c  way  of  organizing  a  complex  &  large  administra?ve  structure.    It  is  responsible  for  carrying  out  the  day-­‐to-­‐day  tasks  of  the  organiza?on  

•  It  employees  over  2.8  million  civilians  •  Theories  of  Bureaucracy    –  The  Weberian  Model  –  a  model  of  bureaucracy  (private  or  public)  developed  by  the  German  sociologist  Max  Weber,  who  viewed  bureaucracies  as  ra?onal,  hierarchical  organiza?ons  in  which  power  flows  from  the  top  downward  and  decisions  are  based  on  logical  reasoning  and  data  analysis  instead  of  “gut  feelings”  and  “guesswork.”  •  Individual  advancement  in  bureaucracies  is  supposed  to  be  based  on  merit  rather  than  poli?cal  connec?ons.  

•  The  modern  bureaucracy,  according  to  Weber,  should  be  an  apoli?cal  organiza?on.  

•  Three  Main  Principles,  according  to  Weber  –  Hierarchical  Authority  –  similar  to  a  pyramid,  with  those  at  the  top  having  authority  over  those  below    

–  Job  Specifica?on  –  each  worker  has  defined  du?es  and  responsibili?es,  a  division  of  labor  among  workers    

–  Formal  Rules  –  established  regula?ons  and  procedures  that  must  be  followed    

– The  Acquisi?ve  Model  –  A  model  of  bureaucracy  that  views  top-­‐level  bureaucrats  as  seeking  constantly  to  expand  the  size  of  their  budgets  and  the  staffs  of  their  departments  or  agencies  so  as  to  gain  greater  power  and  influence  in  the  public  sector.  

– The  Monopolis?c  Model  –  A  model  of  bureaucracy  that  compares  bureaucracies  to  monopolis?c  business  firms.    Lack  of  compe??on  within  a  bureaucracy  leads  to  inefficient  and  costly  opera?ons.    Because  bureaucracies  are  not  penalized  for  inefficiency,  there  is  no  incen?ve  to  reduce  costs  or  use  resources  more  produc?vely.  •  Some  economists  have  argued  that  such  problems  can  be  cured  only  by  priva?zing  certain  bureaucra?c  func?ons.  

– The  Garbage  Can  Model  –  A  model  of  bureaucracy  that  characterizes  bureaucracies  as  rudderless  en??es  with  ligle  formal  organiza?on  in  which  solu?ons  to  problems  are  based  on  trial  and  error  rather  than  ra?onal  policy  planning.  •  Choosing  the  right  policy  is  tricky,  because  usually  it  is  not  possible  to  determine  in  advance  which  solu?on  is  best.    Thus,  bureaucrats  may  have  to  try  one,  two,  three,  or  even  more  policies  before  they  obtain  a  sa?sfactory  result.  

Public  &  Private  Bureaucracies    •  Any  large  corpora?on  or  university  can  be  considered  a  bureaucra?c  organiza?on.    The  fact  is  that  the  handling  of  complex  problems  requires  a  division  of  labor.  

•  A  private  corpora?on,  such  as  Microsoh,  has  a  single  set  of  leaders,  its  board  of  directors.      

•  Public  bureaucracies,  in  contrast,  do  not  have  a  single  set  of  leaders.    Although  the  president  is  the  chief  administrator  of  the  federal  system,  all  bureaucra?c  agencies  are  subject  to  the  desires  of  Congress  for  their  funding,  staffing,  and  their  con?nued  existence.  

•  Public  bureaucracies  serve  the  ci?zen  rather  than  the  stockholder.  

•  Government  bureaucracies  are  not  organized  to  make  a  profit.    Rather  they  are  supposed  to  perform  their  func?ons  as  efficiently  as  possible  to  conserve  the  taxpayer’s  dollars.  

History  &  Growth  of  the  Bureaucracy    •  The  Cons?tu?on  made  ligle  provision  for  a  bureaucracy.  The  President  appoints  the  heads  of  execu?ve  agencies  and  nominates  Cabinet  secretaries.  Congress  has  the  right  to  appropriate  money,  to  inves?gate  the  agencies,  and  to  shape  the  laws  they  administer.  As  a  result,  both  Congress  and  the  President  have  control  over  the  bureaucracy.    

•  In  1789,  the  new  government’s  bureaucracy  was  minuscule.    There  were  three  departments  –  State  (with  9  employees),  War  (with  2  employees),  and  Treasury  (with  39  employees)  –  and  the  Office  of  the  Agorney  General  (which  later  became  the  Department  of  Jus?ce).    The  bureaucracy  was  s?ll  small  in  1798.  

•  Times  have  changed.    Excluding  the  military,  approximately  2.8  million  government  employees  cons?tute  the  federal  bureaucracy.  

•  This  is  somewhat  deceiving,  however,  because  there  are  many  others  working  directly  or  indirectly  for  the  federal  government  as  subcontractors  or  consultants  and  in  other  capaci?es    

•  Since  1970,  this  growth  has  been  mainly  at  the  state  and  local  levels.    If  all  government  employees  are  counted,  then  more  than  15%  of  all  civilian  employment  is  accounted  for  by  government.  

•  The  costs  of  the  bureaucracy  are  commensurately  high  and  growing.    The  share  of  the  gross  na?onal  product  taken  up  by  all  government  spending  was  only  8.5%  in  1929.    Today,  it  exceeds  40%.  

Staffing  the  Bureaucracy    •  The  appointment  of  public  officials  has  changed  over  ?me.  These  appointments  are  significant  because  officials  affect  how  laws  are  interpreted  and  the  tone  and  effec?veness  of  their  administra?on.    

•  Patronage  (appointments  based  on  poli?cal  considera?on)  dominated  appointments  in  the  nineteenth  and  early  twen?eth  centuries.  Patronage  rewarded  supporters,  created  congressional  support,  and  built  party  organiza?ons.    

•  There  are  two  categories  of  bureaucrats:  poli?cal  appointees  and  civil  servants.    The  president  is  able  to  make  poli?cal  appointments  to  most  of  the  top  jobs  in  the  federal  bureaucracy.    The  president  can  also  appoint  ambassadors  to  the  most  important  foreign  posts.  

•  All  of  the  jobs  that  are  considered  “poli?cal  plums”  and  that  usually  go  to  the  poli?cally  well  connected  are  listed  in  Policy  and  Suppor/ng  Posi/ons,  a  book  published  by  the  Government  Prin?ng  Office  aher  each  presiden?al  elec?on  →  The  Plum  Book  (informal  name  of  Policy  and  Suppor/ng  Posi/ons  book).  

•  Poli?cal  Appointees  –  to  fill  the  posi?ons  listed  in  “The  Plum  Book,”  the  president  and  the  president’s  advisors  solicit  sugges?ons  from  poli?cians,  businesspersons,  and  other  prominent  individuals.  –  The  president  must  also  take  into  considera?on  such  things  as  the  candidate’s  work  experience,  intelligence,  poli?cal  affilia?ons,  and  personal  characteris?cs.  

–  Presidents  ohen  use  ambassadorships  to  reward  selected  individuals  for  their  campaign  contribu?ons.  

–  Poli?cal  appointees  are  in  some  sense  the  aristocracy  of  the  federal  government.  

–  Like  the  president,  a  poli?cal  appointee  will  occupy  their  posi?on  for  a  compara?vely  brief  ?me.    Poli?cal  appointees  ohen  leave  office  before  the  president’s  term  actually  ends.    The  average  term  of  service  for  a  poli?cal  appointee  is  less  than  2  years.  

•  Civil  Servants  –  the  professional  civil  servants  who  make  up  the  permanent  civil  service  but  serve  under  a  normally  temporary  poli?cal  appointee  may  not  feel  compelled  to  carry  out  their  current  boss’s  direc?ves  quickly,  because  they  know  that  he  or  she  will  not  be  around  for  very  long.  –  It  is  extremely  difficult  to  discharge  civil  servants.    Less  than  1/10  of  1%  of  federal  employees  have  been  fired  for  incompetence.    Because  discharged  employees  may  appeal  their  dismissals,  many  months  or  even  years  may  pass  before  the  issue  is  resolved  inconclusively.  

–  Under  the  Civil  Service  Reform  Act  of  1978,  for  example,  senior  employees  can  be  transferred  within  their  departments  and  receive  salary  bonuses  and  other  benefits  as  incen?ves  for  being  produc?ve  and  responsive  to  the  goals  and  policy  preferences  of  their  poli?cally  appointed  superiors.  

•  History  of  the  Federal  Civil  Service  –  when  the  federal  government  was  formed  in  1789,  it  had  no  career  public  servants  but  rather  consisted  of  amateurs  who  were  almost  all  Federalists.  – When  Thomas  Jefferson  took  over  as  president,  he  found  that  few  in  his  party  were  holding  federal  administra?ve  jobs,  so  he  fired  more  than  100  officials  and  replaced  them  with  members  of  the  so-­‐called  natural  aristocracy  (a  small  ruling  clique  of  a  society’s  “best”  ci?zens,  whose  membership  is  based  on  birth,  wealth,  and  ability)  that  is,  his  own  Jeffersonian  (Democra?c)  Republicans.      

–  For  the  next  25  years,  a  growing  body  of  federal    administrators  gained  experience  and  exper?se,  becoming  in  the  process  professional  public  servants.      

–  These  administrators  stayed  in  office  regardless  of  who  was  elected  president.    The  bureaucracy  had  become  a  self-­‐maintaining,  long-­‐term  element  within  government.  

–  To  the  Victor  Belong  the  Spoils  –  When  Andrew  Jackson  took  over  the  White  House  in  1828,  he  could  not  believe  how  many  appointed  officials  (were  appointed  before  he  was  president)  were  overtly  hos?le  toward  him  and  his  Democra?c  Party.    »  The  bureaucracy  –  indeed  an  aristocracy  –  considered  itself  the  only  group  fit  to  rule.  

»  Jackson  was  a  man  of  the  people,  and  his  policies  were  Populist  in  nature.    He  fired  federal  officials.    The  spoils  system  –  an  applica?on  of  the  principle  that  to  the  victor  belong  the  spoils  –  reigned.    The  aristocrats  were  out  and  the  common  folk  were  in.  

»  The  Civil  Service  Reform  Act  of  1883  –  Jackson’s  spoils  system  survived  for  a  number  of  years,  but  it  became  increasingly  corrupt.    Also  the  size  of  the  bureaucracy  increased  by  300%  between  1851  and  1881.  •  Reformers  began  to  look  at  examples  of  several  European  countries,  which  established  a  professional  civil  service  that  operated  under  a  merit  system  in  which  job  appointments  were  based  on  compe??ve  examina?ons.  

•  In  1883,  the  Pendleton  Act  or  Civil  Service  Reform  Act  was  passed,  bringing  to  a  close  the  period  of  Jacksonian  spoils.  •  The  act  established  the  principle  of  employment  basis  of  open,  compe??ve  examina?ons  and  created  the  Civil  Service  Commission  to  administer  the  personnel  service.      

•  Only  10%  of  the  federal  employees  were  ini?ally  covered  by  the  merit  system.  

•  Later  laws,  amendments,  and  execu?ve  orders,  increased  the  coverage  to  more  than  90%  of  the  federal  civil  service.  

•  The  Supreme  Court  put  an  even  heavier  lid  on  the  spoils  system  in  Elrod  v.  Burns  in  1976  and  Bran/  v.  Finkel  in  1980.    In  those  two  cases,  the  Court  used  the  First  Amendment  to  forbid  government  officials  from  discharging  or  threatening  to  discharge  public  employees  solely  for  not  being  supporters  of  the  poli?cal  party  in  party  unless  party  affilia?on  is  an  appropriate  requirement  for  the  posi?on.  

•  Addi?onal  curbs  on  poli?cal  patronage  were  added  in  Rutan  v.  Republican  Party  of  Illinois  in  1990.    The  Court’s  ruling  effec?vely  prevented  the  use  of  par?san  poli?cal  considera?ons  as  the  basis  for  hiring,  promo?ng,  or  transferring  most  public  employees.    An  excep?on  was  permiged  for  senior  policymaking  posi?ons,  which  usually  go  to  officials  who  will  support  the  programs  of  the  elected  leaders.  

•  The  Hatch  Act  of  1939  –  the  growing  size  of  the  federal  bureaucracy  created  the  poten?al  for  poli?cal  manipula?on.    In  principle,  a  civil  servant  is  poli?cally  neutral.  •  In  1933,  FDR  set  up  his  New  Deal,  a  virtual  army  of  civil  servants  was  hired  to  staff  the  numerous  new  agencies  that  were  created.    Because  the  individuals  who  worked  in  these  agencies  owed  their  jobs  to  the  Democra?c  Party,  it  seemed  natural  for  them  to  campaign  for  Democra?c  candidates.  

•  Democrats  controlled  Congress  in  the  mid-­‐1930s  did  not  object.    But  in  1938,  a  coali?on  of  conserva?ve  Democrats  and  Republicans  took  control  of  Congress  ad  forced  through  the  Hatch  Act  or    the  PoliAcal  AcAviAes  Act  of  1939.  

•  The  main  provision  of  this  act  is  that  civil  service  employees  cannot  take  an  ac?ve  part  in  the  poli?cal  management  of  campaigns.    It  also  prohibits  the  use  of  federal  authority  to  influence  nomina?ons  and  elec?ons  and  outlaws  the  use  of  bureaucra?c  rank  to  pressure  federal  employees  to  make  poli?cal  contribu?ons.  

 

•  In  1972,  a  federal  district  court  declared  the  Hatch  Act  prohibi?on  against  poli?cal  ac?vity  to  be  uncons?tu?onal.  

•  The  U.S.  Supreme  Court  reaffirmed  the  challenged  por?on  of  the  act  in  1973,  sta?ng  that  the  government’s  interest  in  preserving  a  nonpar?san  civil  service  was  so  great  that  the  prohibi?ons  should  remain.  

•  The  Civil  Service  Reform  Act  of  1978  –  abolished  the  Civil  Service  Commission  and  created  two  new  federal  agencies  to  perform  its  du?es.  •  To  administer  the  civil  service  laws,  rules,  and  regula?ons,  the  act  created  the  Office  of  Personnel  Management  (OPM).    The  OPM  is  empowered  to  recruit,  interview,  and  test  poten?al  government  workers  and  determine  who  should  be  hired.  

•  To  oversee  promo?ons,  employees’  rights,  and  other  employment  magers,  the  act  created  the  Merit  Systems  ProtecAon  Board  (MSPB).    The  MSPB  evaluates  charges  of  wrong-­‐doing,  hears  employee  appeals  from  agency  decisions,  and  can  order  correc?ve  ac?on  against  agencies  and  employees.  

Modern  Agempts  at  Bureaucra?c  Reform  

– Sunshine  Laws  –  in  1976,  Congress  enacted  the  Government  in  the  Sunshine  Act.    It  required  for  the  first  ?me  that  all  mul?-­‐headed  federal  agencies  –  about  50  of  them  –  hold  their  mee?ngs  regularly  in  public  session.  •  The  bill  defined  mee/ngs  as  almost  any  gathering,  formal  or  informal,  of  agency  members,  including  conference  telephone  calls.  

•  The  only  excep?on  to  this  rule  of  openness  are  discussions  of  magers  such  as  court  proceedings,  or  personnel  problems,  and  these  excep?ons  are  specifically  listed  in  the  bill.  

•  Sunshine  laws  now  exist  at  all  levels  of  government.  

– Sunset  Laws  –  a  poten?al  type  of  control  on  the  size  and  scope  of  the  federal  bureaucracy  consists  of  sunset  legislaAon,  which  would  place  government  programs  on  a  definite  schedule  for  congressional  considera?on.  •  Unless  Congress  specifically  reauthorized  a  par?cular  federally  operated  program  at  the  end  of  a  designated  period,  it  would  be  terminated  automa?cally;  that  is,  its  sun  would  set.  

•  In  1976,  a  state  legislature  (Colorado)  adopted  sunset  legisla?on  for  state  regulatory  commissions,  giving  them  a  life  of  6  years  before  their  suns  set.  

•  Today,  most  states  have  some  type  of  sunset  law.  

– Contrac?ng  Out  –  one  approach  to  bureaucra?c  reform  is  contrac?ng  out,  which  occurs  when  government  services  are  replaced  by  services  from  the  private  sector.      •  For  example,  the  government  might  contract  with  private  firms  to  operate  prisons.    

•  Supporters  of  contrac?ng  out  argue  that  some  services  could  be  provided  more  efficiently  by  the  private  sector.  

•  Another  scheme  is  to  furnish  vouchers  to  “clients”  in  lieu  of  services.    For  example,  it  has  been  proposed  that  instead  of  federally  supported  housing  assistance,  the  government  should  offer  vouchers  that  recipients  could  use  to  “pay”  for  housing  in  privately  owned  buildings.  

•  The  contrac?ng-­‐out  strategy  has  been  most  successful  on  the  local  level.  

 

–  Incen?ves  for  Efficiency  and  Produc?vity  –  state  governments  are  beginning  to  experiment  with  a  variety  of  schemes  to  run  their  opera?ons  more  efficiently  and  capably.  •  For  example,  many  governors,  mayors,  and  city  administrators  are  considering  ways  in  which  government  can  be  made  more  entrepreneurial.    Some  of  the  more  promising  measures  have  included  such  tac?cs  as  permiIng  agencies  that  do  not  spend  their  en?re  budgets  to  keep  some  of  the  difference  and  rewarding  employees  with  performance-­‐based  bonuses.  

•  At  the  federal  level,  the  Government  Performance  and  Results  Act  of  1997  was  designed  to  improve  efficiency  in  the  federal  workforce.    The  act  required  that  all  government  agencies  (except  the  CIA)  describe  their  new  goals  and  establish  methods  for  determining  whether  those  goals  are  met.  

•  Some  observers  believe  that  the  na?on’s  diverse  economic  base  cannot  be  administered  competently  by  tradi?onal  bureaucra?c  organiza?ons.    Consequently,  government  must  become  more  responsive  to  cope  with  the  increasing  number  of  demands  placed  on  it.  

•  Poli?cal  scien?sts  Joel  Aberbach  and  Bert  Rockman  take  issue  with  this  conten?on.    They  argue  that  the  bureaucracy  has  changed  significantly  over  ?me  in  response  to  changes  desired  by  various  presiden?al  administra?ons.    In  their  opinion,  many  of  the  problems  agributed  to  the  bureaucracy  are,  in  fact,  a  result  of  the  poli?cal  decision-­‐making  process.  

•  Other  analysts  have  suggested  that  the  problem  lies  not  so  much  with  tradi?onal  bureaucra?c  organiza?ons  as  with  the  people  who  run  them.    According  to  policy  specialist  Taegan  Goddard  and  journalist  Christopher  Riback,  what  needs  to  be  ‘reinvented”  is  not  the  machinery  of  government  but  public  officials.  

•  New  appointees  are  ohen  untrained  for  their  jobs.    According  to  these  authors,  if  we  want  to  reform  the  bureaucracy,  we  should  focus  on  preparing  newcomers  for  the  task  of  “doing”  government.  

– Helping  Out  the  Whistleblowers  –  the  term  whistleblower  means  someone  who  blows  the  whistle  on  a  gross  governmental  inefficiency  or  illegal  ac?ons.    Whistleblowers  may  be  clerical  workers,  managers,  or  even  specialists,  such  as  scien?sts.  •  The  1978  Civil  Service  Reform  Act  prohibits  reprisals  against  whistleblowers  by  their  superiors  and  it  set  up  the  Merit  Systems  ProtecAon  Board  as  part  of  this  protec?on.  

•  About  35%  of  all  calls  result  in  agency  ac?on  or  follow-­‐up.  • Whistleblower  ProtecAon  Act  of  1989  provided  further  protec?on  against  whistleblowing.    This  act  established  an  independent  agency,  the  Office  of  Special  Counsel  (OSC)  to  inves?gate  complaints  brought  by  government  employees  who  have  been  demoted,  fired,  or  otherwise  sanc?oned  for  repor?ng  government  fraud  or  waste.  

•  False  Claims  Act  of  1986  allows  a  whistleblower  who  has  disclosed  informa?on  rela?ng  to  a  fraud  perpetrated  against  the  U.S.  government  to  receive  a  monetary  award.    If  the  government  chooses  to  prosecute  a  case,  the  whistleblower  receives  between  15%  and  25%  of  the  proceeds.    If  the  government  declines  to  intervene,  the  whistleblower  can  bring  suit  on  behalf  of  the  government  and  will  receive  between  25%  and  30%  of  the  proceeds.    

Who  are  the  bureaucrats    •  Bureaucrats  are  dis?nct  from  elected  officials.  While  in  prac?ce  bureaucrats  have  some  discre?onary  authority  (for  example,  police  do  not  arrest  ever  lawbreaker  they  see),  only  elected  officials  are  supposed  to  have  discre?onary  authority.  This  explains  why  bureaucrats  are  insulated  from  being  fired  for  poli?cal  purposes  and  why  bureaucrats  must  engage  in  seemingly  redundant  procedures  and  rules.  These  assure  that  policies  made  at  the  top  are  carried  out  throughout  the  organiza?on  and  that  every  ci?zen  is  treated  the  same.    

•  Recruitment  and  Reten?on:  The  federal  civil  service  system  was  designed  to  recruit  qualified  people  on  the  basis  of  merit  and  to  retain  and  promote  employees  on  the  basis  of  performance.  Many  federal  officials  belong  to  the  compe//ve  service,  in  which  they  are  appointed  only  aher  they  have  passed  a  wrigen  examina?on.  Employees  hired  outside  the  compe??ve  service  are  part  of  the  excepted  service,  which  means  they  are  not  hired  based  on  an  examina?on,  but  rather  in  a  non-­‐par?san  fashion.  Most  bureaucrats  cannot  be  fired  easily,  although  there  are  informal  methods  of  disciplining.  When  bureaucrats  do  get  fired,  the  process  usually  takes  up  to  a  year.    

 

•  Personal  and  Professional  Agributes:  The  bureaucracy  is  a  cross  sec?on  of  American  society  in  terms  of  the  educa?on,  sex,  race,  and  social  origins  of  its  members.  As  in  the  case  in  the  general  workforce,  African  Americans  and  other  minori?es  are  most  likely  to  be  heavily  represented  in  the  lowest  grade  levels  and  tend  to  be  underrepresented  at  the  execu?ve  level.  Because  of  the  civil  service  system,  bureaucracies  were,  for  a  long  ?me,  less  discriminatory  in  hiring  minori?es  and  women  than  private  businesses.  At  higher  levels,  the  typical  civil  servant  is  a  middle-­‐aged  man  with  a  college  degree  whose  father  was  somewhat  more  advantaged  than  the  average  ci?zen.  While  career  civil  servants  are  more  pro-­‐government  than  the  public  at  large,  on  most  policy  ques?ons  they  do  not  have  extreme  posi?ons.    

 

•  The  Nature  of  Their  Jobs:  Career  bureaucrats  ohen  differ  poli?cally  from  their  supervisors  and  the  poli?cal  appointees  who  head  their  agencies.  Nevertheless,  most  bureaucrats  try  to  carry  out  policy,  even  policy  with  which  they  disagree.  “Whistle-­‐Blower”  legisla?on  protects  them  from  puni?ve  ac?on  by  supervisors  for  repor?ng  waste,  fraud,  or  abuse  in  structured  jobs  that  make  their  personal  aItudes  irrelevant.  For  example,  the  EPA  agracts  bureaucrats  who  want  to  protect  the  environment  and  public  health  as  well  as  free  marketers  who  want  to  insulate  companies  from  unnecessary  regula?ons.  Both  end  up  performing  their  jobs  in  similar  ways.  Within  each  agency  there  is  a  culture  and  informal  understanding  among  employees  about  how  they  are  supposed  to  act.  This  culture  can  mo?vate  employees,  but  it  also  can  make  agencies  resistant  to  change.    

•  Involvement  in  Iron  Triangles  and  Issue  Networks:  Agencies  have  ohen  used  their  posi?ons  to  form  useful  power  rela?onships  with  a  congressional  commigee  or  an  interest  group.  At  one  ?me  scholars  described  the  rela?onship  between  an  agency,  a  commigee,  and  an  interest  group  as  an  Iron  Triangle.  Through  Iron  Triangles,  the  self-­‐interest  of  all  three  groups  is  served.  Iron  Triangles  are  far  less  common  today  because  poli?cs  has  become  too  complicated.  Issues  involve  more  powerful  actors  because  of  the  interchange  among  agencies,  Congress,  lobbyists,  think  tanks,  academia,  and  corpora?ons.  This  interchange  has  created  ISSUE  NETWORKS  (composed  of  members  of  IGs,  professors,  think  tanks,  and  media  who  rarely  debate  government  policy  on  a  certain  subject).  Issue  Networks  have  replaced  Iron  Triangles.    

Bureaucrats  as  Poli?cians  &  Policymakers  •  Because  Congress  is  unable  to  oversee  the  day-­‐to-­‐day  administra?on  of  its  programs,  it  must  delegate  certain  powers  to  administra?ve  agencies.    Congress  delegates  the  power  to  implement  legisla?on  to  agencies  through  what  is  called  enabling  legislaAon.    –  The  enabling  legisla?on  generally  specifies  the  name,  purpose,  composi?on,  func?ons,  and  powers  of  the  agency.  

–  In  theory,  the  agencies  should  put  into  effect  laws  passed  by  Congress.    Laws  are  ohen  drahed  in  such  vague  and  general  terms  that  they  provide  ligle  guidance  to  agency  administrators  as  to  how  the  laws  should  be  put  into  effect.    This  means  that  the  agency  themselves  must  decide  how  best  to  carry  out  the  wishes  of  Congress.  

–  Congress  realizes  it  lacks  the  technical  exper?se  and  the  resources  to  monitor  the  implementa?on  of  its  laws.    The  agency  is  created  to  fill  the  gaps.    This  gap-­‐filling  role  requires  the  agency  to  formulate  administra?ve  rules  (regula?ons)  to  put  flesh  on  the  bones  of  the  law.    But  it  also  forces  the  agency  itself  to  assume  the  role  of  an  unelected  policymaker.  

– The  Rulemaking  Environment  –  the  proposed  regula?on  would  be  published  in  the  Federal  Registrar,  a  daily  government  publica?on,  so  that  interested  par?es  would  have  an  opportunity  to  comment  on  it.  •  Individuals  and  companies  that  opposed  parts  or  all  of  the  rule  might  try  to  convince  the  agency  to  revise  or  redrah  the  regula?on.  

•  Some  par?es  might  then  try  to  persuade  the  agency  to  withdraw  the  proposed  regula?on  altogether.  

•  The  agency  would  consider  these  comments  in  drahing  the  final  version  of  the  regula?on  following  the  expira?on  of  the  comment  period.  

•  Once  the  final  regula?on  has  been  published  in  the  Federal  Registrar,  the  regula?on  might  be  challenged  in  court  by  a  party  having  a  direct  interest  in  the  rule.  

•  A  budget  package  signed  by  the  president  in  1996  provided  some  regulatory  relief.    When  an  agency  now  issues  a  new  rule,  it  has  to  wait  60  days  (instead  of  30  days,  as  previously  required)  before  enforcing  the  rule.    During  the  wai?ng  period,  businesses,  individuals,  and  state  and  local  governments  can  ask  Congress  to  overturn  the  regula?on  rather  than  having  to  sue  the  agency  aher  the  rule  takes  effect.  

– Nego?ated  Rulemaking  –  today,  a  growing  number  of  federal  agencies  encourage  businesses  and  public-­‐interest  groups  to  become  directly  involved  in  the  drahing  of  regula?ons.    Agencies  hope  that  such  par?cipa?on  may  help  prevent  later  courtroom  bagles  over  the  meaning,  applicability,  and  legal  effect  of  the  regula?ons.  •  Congress  formally  approved  such  a  process  in  the  NegoAated  Rulemaking  Act  of  1990.    The  act  authorizes  agencies  to  allow  those  who  will  affected  by  a  new  rule  to  par?cipate  in  the  rule-­‐drahing  process.      

•  If  an  agency  chooses  to  engage  in  nego?ated  rulemaking,  it  must  publish  in  the  Federal  Registrar  the  subject  and  scope  of  the  rule  to  be  developed,  the  par?es  that  will  be  affected  significantly  by  the  rule,  and  other  informa?on.  

•  Representa?ves  of  the  affected  groups  and  other  interested  par?es  then  may  apply  to  be  members  of  the  nego?a?ng  commigee.    The  agency  is  represented  on  the  commigee,  but  a  neutral  third  party  (not  the  agency)  presides  over  the  proceedings.  

•  Once  the  commigee  has  reached  an  agreement  on  the  proposed  rule,  no?ce  of  the  proposed  rule  is  published  in  the  Federal  Registrar,  followed  by  a  period  of  comments  by  any  person  or  organiza?on  interested  in  the  proposed  rule.  

•  Nego?ated  rulemaking  ohen  is  conducted  under  the  condi?on  that  the  par?cipants  promise  not  to  challenge  in  court  the  outcome  of  any  agreement  to  which  they  were  a  party.  

•  Bureaucrats  Are  Policymakers  –  how  a  law  passed  by  Congress  eventually  is  translated  into  concrete  ac?on  –  from  the  forms  to  be  filled  out  to  decisions  about  who  gets  the  benefits  –  usually  is  determined  within  each  agency  or  department.    Even  the  evalua?on  of  whether  a  policy  has  achieved  its  purpose  usually  is  based  on  studies  that  are  commissioned  and  interpreted  by  the  agency  administering  the  program.    The  bureaucracy’s  policymaking  role  ohen  has  been  depicted  by  what  has  been  called  the  “iron  triangle.”  

•  Iron  Triangles  –  a  three-­‐way  alliance  among  legislators  in  Congress,  bureaucrats,  and  interest  groups  in  a  given  policy  area.    The  presump?on  was  that  policy  development  depended  on  how  a  policy  affected  each  component  of  the  iron  triangle.  –  Department’s  interests    to  support  policies  that  enhance  their  department’s  budget  and  powers  will  lend  whatever  support  it  can  to  those  members  of  Congress  who  are  in  charge  of  deciding  what  programs  in  their  departments  should  be  cut,  maintained,  or  created  and  what  amount  of  funds  should  be  allocated  to  the  department.  

– Members  of  Congress  cannot  afford  to  ignore  the  wishes  of  interest  groups,  because  those  groups  are  poten?al  sources  of  voter  support  and  campaign  contribu?ons.    Therefore,  the  legislators  involved  in  the  iron  triangle  will  work  closely  with  interest  groups  lobbyists  when  developing  new  policy.  

–  Legislators  will  also  work  closely  with  the  Department  affected,  in  implemen?ng  a  policy,  can  develop  rules  that  benefit  –  or  are  not  adverse  to  –  certain  industries  or  groups.  

–  At  ?mes,  iron  triangles  have  completely  thwarted  efforts  by  the  president  to  get  the  administra?on’s  programs  enacted.  

•  Issue  Networks  –  today,  policymaking  typically  involves  a  complex  agempt  to  balance  many  conflic?ng  demands.    Many  scholars  now  use  the  term  “issue  network”  to  describe  the  policymaking  process  instead  of  “iron  triangles.”  –  Ohen,  different  interest  groups  concerned  about  a  certain  area,  such  as  agriculture,  will  have  conflic?ng  demands,  which  makes  agency  decision  making  difficult.  

–  Addi?onally,  government  agencies  ohen  are  controlled  by  more  than  one  legisla?ve  group  (commigees,  subcommigees).  

–  Divided  government  in  recent  years  has  meant  that  departments  may  be  pressured  by  the  president  to  take  one  approach  and  by  legislators  to  take  another.  

–  An  issue  network  consists  of  a  group  of  individuals  or  organiza?ons  that  support  a  par?cular  policy  posi?on  on  the  environment,  taxa?on,  consumer  safety,  or  some  other  issue.  

–  Typically,  an  issue  network  includes  legislators  and  or  their  staff  members,  interest  groups,  bureaucrats,  scholars,  and  other  experts,  and  representa?ves  from  the  media.  

– Members  of  a  par?cular  issue  network  work  together  to  influence  the  president,  members  of  Congress,  administra?ve  agencies,  and  the  courts  to  change  public  policy  on  a  specific  issue.  

–  Each  policy  issue  may  involve  conflic?ng  posi?ons  taken  by  two  or  more  issue  networks.  

Congressional  Control  of  the  Bureaucracy    •  Authorizing  Funds  –  once  an  agency  is  created  by  enabling  legisla?on,  Congress  must  authorize  funds  for  it.    The  authoriza?on  is  a  formal  declara?on  by  the  appropriate  legisla?ve  commigee  that  a  certain  amount  of  funding  may  be  available  for  the  agency.    The  authoriza?on  itself  may  terminate  in  a  year,  or  it  may  be  renewed  automa?cally  without  further  ac?on  by  Congress  (Social  Security).  –  Periodic  authoriza?ons  enable  Congress  to  exercise  greater  control  over  the  spending  programs  of  an  agency,  whereas  permanent  authoriza?ons  free  Congress  from  the  task  of  having  to  review  the  authoriza?on  each  year.  

–  The  drawback  of  permanent  authoriza?ons  is  that  they  can  become  almost  impossible  to  control  poli?cally.  

•  Appropria?ng  Funds  –  Aher  the  funds  are  authorized,  they  must  be  appropriated  by  Congress.    – The  appropria?ons  commigees  of  both  the  House  and  Senate  forward  spending  bills  to  their  respec?ve  bodies.      

– The  appropria?on  of  funds  occurs  when  the  final  bill  is  passed.  

– Congress  is  not  required  to  appropriate  the  en?re  authorized  amount.    It  may  appropriate  less  if  it  so  chooses.  

•  Congressional  Inves?ga?ons,  Hearings,  and  Review  -­‐-­‐  congressional  commigees  conduct  inves?ga?ons  and  hold  hearings  to  oversee  an  agency’s  ac?ons,  reviewing  them  to  ensure  compliance  with  congressional  inten?ons.  – The  agency’s  officers  and  employees  cane  be  ordered  to  tes?fy  before  a  commigee  about  the  details  of  an  ac?on.  

– Through  these  oversight  ac?vi?es,  especially  in  the  ques?oning  and  commen?ng  by  members  of  the  House  or  Senate  during  the  hearings,  Congress  indicates  its  posi?on  on  specific  programs  and  issues.  

– Congress  can  also  ask  the  General  Accoun?ng  Office  (GAO)  to  inves?gate  par?cular  agency  ac?ons.  

–  The  Congressional  Budget  Office  (CBO)  also  conducts  oversight  studies.  

–  The  results  of  a  GAO  or  CBO  study  may  encourage  Congress  to  hold  further  hearings  or  make  changes  in  the  law.    Even  if  the  law  is  not  changed  explicitly  by  Congress,  the  views  expressed  in  any  inves?ga?ons  and  hearings  are  taken  seriously  by  agency  officials,  who  ohen  act  on  those  views.  

–  In  1996,  Congress  passed  the  Congressional  Review  Act.    The  act  created  special  procedures  that  could  be  used  to  express  congressional  disapproval  of  par?cular  agency  ac?ons.  

–  These  procedures  have  been  rarely  used.    Since  the  act’s  passage,  the  execu?ve  branch  has  issued  over  15,000  regula?ons.    Only  8  resolu?ons  of  disapproval  have  been  introduced,  and  none  of  these  was  passed  by  wither  chamber.  

Organizing  the  Federal  Bureaucracy  – Within  the  federal  bureaucracy  are  a  number  of  different  types  of  government  agencies  and  organiza?ons    

– The  execu?ve  branch,  which  employs  most  of  the  bureaucrats,  has  four  major  types  of  bureaucra?c  structures.    They  are:  •  Cabinet  Departments  –  the  15  cabinet  departments  are  the  major  service  organiza?ons  of  the  federal  government  –  They  can  also  be  described  in  management  terms  as  line  organizaAons.    This  means  that  they  are  directly  accountable  to  the  president  and  are  responsible  for  performing  government  func?ons,  such  as  prin?ng  money  or  training  troops.  

–  These  departments  were  created  by  Congress  when  the  need  for  each  department  arose.  

•  A  president  might  ask  that  a  new  department  be  created  or  an  old  one  abolished,  but  the  president  has  no  power  to  do  so  without  legisla?ve  approval  from  Congress.  

•  Each  department  is  headed  by  a  secretary  (except  for  the  Jus?ce  Department,  which  is  headed  by  the  agorney  general)  and  has  several  levels  of  undersecretaries,  assistant  secretaries,  and  so  on.  

•  Presidents  theore?cally  have  considerable  control  over  the  cabinet  departments,  because  presidents  are  able  to  appoint  or  fire  all  of  the  top  officials.  

•  One  reason  presidents  are  frequently  unhappy  with  their  departments  is  that  the  en?re  bureaucra?c  structure  below  the  top  poli?cal  levels  is  staffed  by  permanent  employees,  many  of  whom  are  commiged  to  established  programs  or  procedures  and  who  resist  change.      

•  Independent  Execu?ve  Agencies  –  are  bureaucra?c  organiza?ons  that  are  not  located  within  a  department  but  report  directly  to  the  president,  who  appoints  their  chief  officials.    When  a  new  federal  agency  is  created  Congress  decides  where  it  will  be  located  in  the  bureaucracy.  –  In  this  century,  presidents  ohen  have  asked  that  a  new  organiza?on  be  kept  separate  or  independent  rather  than  added  to  an  exis?ng  department,  par?cularly  if  a  department  may  in  fact  be  hos?le  to  the  agency’s  crea?on    

–  Examples-­‐  CIA,  NASA  

•  Independent  Regulatory  Agencies–  The  regulatory  agencies  are  administered  independently  of  all  three  branches  of  government.    They  were  set  up  because  Congress  felt  it  was  unable  to  handle  the  complexi?es  and  technicali?es  required  to  carry  out  specific  laws  in  the  public  interest.  –  The  regulatory  commissions  in  fact  combine  some  func?ons  of  all  three  branches  of  government  –  execu?ve,  legisla?ve,  and  judicial.  »  They  are  legisla?ve  in  that  they  make  rules  that  have  the  force  of  law.  

»  They  are  execu?ve  in  that  they  provide  for  the  enforcement  of  those  rules.  

»  They  are  judicial  in  that  they  decide  disputes  involving  rules  they  have  made.        

»  Examples-­‐  FCC  (Federal  Communica?ons  Commission),  NRC  (Nuclear  Regulatory  Commission)  

 

–  Regulatory  agency  members  are  appointed  by  the  president  with  the  consent  of  the  Senate,  although  they  do  no  report  to  the  president.    By  law,  the  members  of  regulatory  agencies  cannot  all  be  from  the  same  poli?cal  party.  »  Presidents  can  influence  regulatory  agency  behavior  by  appoin?ng  people  of  their  own  par?es  or  people  who  share  their  poli?cal  views  when  vacancies  occur,  in  par?cular  when  the  chair  is  vacant.  

» Members  may  be  removed  by  the  president  only  for  causes  specified  in  the  law  crea?ng  the  agency.  

–  Agency  Capture  –  Some  observers  contend  that  many  independent  regulatory  agencies  have  been  captured  (the  act  of  gaining  direct  or  indirect  control  over  agency  personnel  and  decision  makers  by  the  industry  that  is  being  regulated)  by  the  very  industries  and  firms  that  they  were  suppose  to  regulate.    The  results  have  been  less  compe??on,  higher  prices  rather  than  lower  prices,  and  less  choice  rather  than  more  choice  for  consumers.  

–  Deregula?on  and  Re-­‐regula?on  –  During  the  presidency  of  Ronald  Reagan  in  the  1980s,  some  significant  deregula?on  (the  removal  of  regulatory  restraints  –  the  opposite  of  regula?on)  occurred.    During  the  Bush  administra?on,  calls  for  re-­‐regula?on  of  many  businesses  increased.    Under  Clinton,  there  was  deregula?on  of  the  banking  and  telecommunica?ons  industries,  and  many  other  sectors  of  the  economy.    At  the  same  ?me,  there  was  extensive  regula?on  to  protect  the  environment.  

•  Government  Corpora?ons  –  Although  the  concept  is  borrowed  from  the  world  of  business,  dis?nct  differences  exist  between  public  and  private  corpora?ons.  –  A  private  corpora?on  has  shareholders  (stockholders)  who  elect  a  board  of  directors,  who  in  turn  choose  the  corporate  officers,  such  as  president  and  vice  president    

– When  a  private  corpora?on  makes  a  profit,  it  must  pay  taxes  (unless  it  avoids  the  through  various  legal  loopholes).    It  either  distributes  part  or  all  of  the  aher-­‐tax  profits  to  shareholders  as  dividends  or  plows  the  profits  back  into  the  corpora?on  to  make  new  investments.  

–  A  government  corpora?on  has  a  board  of  directors  and  managers,  but  it  does  not  have  any  stockholders.    We  cannot  buy  shares  of  stock  in  a  government  corpora?on.  »  If  the  government  corpora?on  makes  a  profit,  it  does  not  distribute  the  profits  as  dividends.  

»  Also  if  it  makes  a  profit,  it  does  not  have  to  pay  taxes;  the  profits  remain  in  the  corpora?on    

–  Example-­‐  TVA  (Tennessee  Valley  Authority),  USPS,  Amtrak  

Accountability    •  Biggest  difference  between  a  government  agency  and  a  private  organiza?on  is  the  number  of  constraints  placed  on  agencies  from  other  parts  of  government  and  by  law.  A  government  bureau  cannot  hire,  fire,  build  or  sell  without  going  through  procedures  set  by  Congress,  ohen  through  law.    – D  u  p  l  i  c  a  t  i  o  n  –  Congress  seldom  gives  any  one  job  to  a  single  agency.  For  example,  drug  trafficking  is  the  task  of  the  Customs  Services,  the  FBI,  the  DEA,  the  Border  Patrol,  and  the  Defense  Department.  Although  this  spreading  out  of  the  responsibility  ohen  leads  to  contradic?ons  among  agencies  and  some?mes  inhibits  the  responsiveness  of  government,  it  also  keeps  any  one  agency  from  becoming  all  powerful.    

•  Authoriza?on  –  No  agency  may  spend  money  unless  it  has  first  been  authorized  by  Congress.  Authoriza?on  legisla?on  originates  in  a  legisla?ve  commigee,  and  states  the  maximum  amount  of  money  that  an  agency  may  spend  on  a  given  program.  Furthermore,  even  if  funds  have  been  authorized,  Congress  must  also  appropriate  the  money.    

•  H  e  a  r  i  n  g  s  –  Congressional  commigees  may  hold  hearings  as  part  of  their  oversight  responsibili?es.  Agency  abuses  may  be  ques?oned  publicly,  although  the  commigee  hearings  typically  have  the  oversight  responsibility,  so  a  weak  agency  may  reflect  weak  oversight.    

•  Rewri?ng  Legisla?on  –  If  they  wish  to  restrict  the  power  of  an  agency,  Congress  may  rewrite  legisla?on  or  make  it  more  detailed.  Every  statute  is  filled  with  instruc?ons  to  its  administrators,  and  the  more  detailed  the  instruc?ons,  the  beger  able  Congress  is  to  restrict  the  agency’s  power.  S?ll,  an  agency  usually  finds  a  way  to  influence  the  policy,  no  mager  how  detailed  the  orders  from  Congress.    

 

•  President:    – Appointments  –  The  most  obvious  control  the  president  has  over  the  execu?ve  branch  is  his  power  to  appoint  senior  bureaucrats.  If  a  president  disagrees  with  the  policies  of  an  agency,  he  can  appoint  a  head  that  agrees  with  him.  This  strategy  may  lead  to  problems  because  the  agency  can  work  against  the  new  head,  possibly  seeking  support  from  Congress.  Also,  because  agencies  tend  to  have  strong  points  of  view,  a  new  head  may  some?mes  be  swayed  to  their  beliefs.    

– Execu?ve  Orders  –  A  president  may  issue  execu?ve  orders  to  agencies  that  they  must  obey.  More  typically,  aides  may  pass  the  word  informally  to  agencies  as  to  the  president’s  wishes.  Even  though  agencies  may  resist,  they  usually  pay  agen?on  to  the  president’s  preferences.    

•  E  c  o  n  o  m  i  c  P  o  w  e  r  s  –  The  President  may  exercise  authority  through  the  OMB,  which  is  the  President’s  own  final  authority  on  any  agency’s  budget.  The  OMB  may  cut  or  add  to  an  agency’s  budget,  although  Congress  ul?mately  does  the  appropria?ng.    

•  Reorganiza?on  –  The  President  may  reorganize  or  combine  agencies  to  reward  or  punish  them.  This  power  is  limited;  however,  because  entrenched  bureaucracies,  Congress,  and  suppor?ng  interest  groups  may  keep  a  president  from  ac?ng  as  he  might  like.    

Cri?cism  of  the  Bureaucracy      •  Red  Tape  –  the  maze  of  government  rules,  regula?ons,  and  paperwork  that  makes  government  so  overwhelming  to  ci?zens  that  many  try  to  avoid  any  contact.    

•  Conflict  –  agencies  that  ohen  work  at  cross  purposes  with  one  another    

•  Duplica?on  –  a  situa?on  where  two  agencies  appear  to  be  doing  the  same  thing    

•  Unchecked  Growth  –  the  tendency  of  agencies  to  grow  unnecessarily  and  for  costs  to  escalate  propor?onately    

•  Waste  –  spending  more  on  products  and/or  services  than  is  necessary    

•  Lack  of  Accountability  –  the  difficulty  in  firing  or  demo?ng  an  incompetent  bureaucrat.