Wilson (James Q. Wilson, Bureaucracy: What Government

¶ … Wilson (James Q. Wilson, Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do Why They Do it), describe discuss judges (Courts) bureaucrats world differently. You book James Q. Wilson, Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do Why They Do It edition.

The world from the perspective of judges, and, respectively, bureaucrats

While many have the tendency to look at judges and bureaucrats as largely being similar in scope and behavior, the reality is that they are really different. The environments in which they function in are very different and most organizations and tasks they work with also differ largely. Judges and bureaucrats can actually work against each-other in some cases, with the latter sometimes having authority over a series of legislations that the former want to change. As a consequence, the two groups can have opposing interests and can go as far as to use all of their influence and resources with the purpose to achieve their goals.

Many judges who express interest in devising a law have a limited understanding of the likeliness that the respective law is going to be effective or of the efforts that a community would have to go through in order to actually be able to benefit as a result of the law. According to James Wilson (290), "Judges and bureaucrats see the world differently, partly because of their different backgrounds but mostly because of the tasks they perform and the organizations in which they operate." This makes it possible for someone to comprehend the degree to which the environments that the two communities live in are different.

Numerous judges, for example, have gotten actively involved in changing prison systems in an attempt to guarantee safer conditions both for inmates and for guards. "But of course few judges are likely to have such a good understanding of prisons, any more than they are likely to know much about schools, police departments, welfare agencies, or regulatory commissions." (Wilson, 294) Even in cases when they are determined to make a positive change, judges risk triggering a chain of events that can eventually damage the system as a whole.

In order to be able to actually make a difference, judges would have to gain a complex understanding of agencies they want to deal with. By learning more about agencies and their management, judges can eventually play an active role in improving conditions in these respective agencies without risking to implement reform strategies that can actually have a negative effect on agencies.

When discussing with regard to judges in the context of bureaucrats, it would be safe to say that they almost live a paradox: they have the mission to make sure that agencies work exactly as they are meant to, but they also need to limit their involvement so as for them to avoid making changes that can be devastating for some of these agencies.

Bureaucratic agencies need to acknowledge their limitations and wait until the individuals in power are going to act in agreement with their interests as long as they want to achieve particular objectives. In contrast, judges are provided with more power to act and, even in situations when they have a limited understanding of the fields they are getting involved in, they can still emphasize their viewpoint in an attempt to influence others to accept it.

The legislature has the power but it also needs to act in agreement with requirements coming from an authority. "It cannot demand that the executive in charge of the program be a person approved by or drawn from the ranks of the group; the direction of programs will be in the hands of career bureaucrats who owe little or nothing to outside interests." (Wilson, 299) Bureaucrats are typically more likely to keep their actions secret from the press in an attempt to have control over the domain they are working in and in order to prevent the masses from being confused as a consequence of their behaviors.