Bureaucracy as a Necessary Evil: The Formalized

Bureaucracy as a Necessary Evil: The Formalized of the Organizational Structure of Government Agencies The creation of an efficient and competitive civil service that is the bureaucracy found in most governments today is often identified as a "necessary evil." Described as a specific form of organization that aims "to provide as much efficiency as possible" and to set up a "hierarchically structured decision-making process that reduces...personal factors to a minimum" (Jackson, 2002:276).

It is evident that bureaucracy is created carrying with it its advantages for the efficient performance of the government. However, the claim that bureaucracy is a "necessary evil" is best expressed from the point-of-view of the politicians and elected members of the government. Bureaucracy as a necessary evil may also be the opinion of people who had frustrating experiences working with or seeking help from members of the bureaucratic government.

Often termed as "red tape," bureaucracy, instead of promoting efficiency and organization, may also mean the implementation of unnecessary, overcomplicated, even obstructive, official procedures. These are just few of the examples illustrating bureaucracy as a detriment to the smooth processing of government transactions and activities. This paper offers an analysis of the reasons why bureaucracy is considered a necessary evil, an important organization in the government, often considered as an agent towards the implementation of the checks and balances within it (government).

The texts that follow offer arguments about the advantages of bureaucracy and the essential role it plays for the improvement of government service for civil society. In his book "Politics of Bureaucracy," Peters (2001) enumerates five (5) issues that help explain why bureaucracy is necessary in the government. The first issue that he addresses is the seemingly lack of "agency ideology," which he defines as "well-developed ideas of what government should do." Political parties have agency ideologies, which may lead to the conclusion that they are far more efficient than the bureaucracy.

However, the author points out that bureaucracy has its own ideology -- that is, bureaucracy is "interested in imposing a new set of policy priorities.. civil servants...become experts in their policy areas and develop ideas about how policy might be done better" (222). In this statement, it is evident that bureaucracy leads to the active participation of the civil society, wherein the citizens of the country, as members of the bureaucratic government, perform their duty for the service of the society.

Another issue that illustrates bureaucracy's efficiency and advantage is the presence of "not unworkable means" -- that is, workable means to perform a particular task or process without the participation of politicians or any elected official who may have particular self-interests that is not beneficial to society. Jackson identifies this characteristic of bureaucracy as the presence of internal control (2002:280).

This is where the issue of checks and balances within the government takes place: with the presence of internal control, members of the bureaucracy are able to control the activities and access to funds and political privileges of public servants. This does not mean, however, that bureaucratic members be antagonistic towards the politicians. Internal control requires bureaucratic members to maintain objectivity while dealing with public servants, with utmost respect and consideration duly given them.

The third aspect of bureaucracy that makes it efficient and advantageous for the government is the emergence of competition among its agencies and organizations. Bureaucracy is designed systematically and hierarchically, and this organizational structure inherently promotes competition not only among the members, but also among other bureaucratic agencies as well. Peters considers bureaucratic competition as advantageous to both governments and civil societies because it "...allows political and administrative personnel to choose more directly among alternative policies..

competition among agencies does have a place as a means of allocating resources among competing policies and thus allowing some organizations to flourish and some to languish..." (226). Indeed, since bureaucratic agencies are dependent on the government for financial support, it is important that, just like in the business setting, departments and agencies are able to deliver their function for the civil society. Efficient performance among the agencies translates to the government's efficiency, which leads to the effective operation of political administration and system of the country.

In the end, the civil society benefits from all these efficiencies. Apart from competition and internal control, bureaucratic members are also subject to the presence of incumbent positions among its members. Just like public servants, members of the bureaucracy are required to assume a particular position for a certain period of time. Performance and efficiency are crucial criteria where civil society and public servants shall gauge whether the bureaucratic member is useful for the efficient operation of the bureaucratic government or not.

Although bureaucratic positions are appointed mainly by public officials, it is vital that they show exceptional performance in order to finish their length of service for the particular position. Non-adherence to this expectation shall eventually lead to the bureaucrat's dismissal or demotion from his/her service. Thus, in the same way that competition serves as catalysts for bureaucratic agencies to function effectively, incumbency of bureaucratic positions also encourage members of the bureaucracy to perform optimally, according to the requirements of their position or role in the agency.

The fifth aspect of bureaucracy that makes it advantageous.