UNIT-13 CONTEMPORARY CONTEXT OF

INDIAN BUREAUCRACY
Structure
13.0 Learning Outcome
13.1 Introduction
13.2 Characteristics of Bureaucracy
13.3 Challenges to Weber’s Concept of Bureaucracy
13.4 Role of Bureaucracy in India
13.5 Indian Context of Bureaucracy
13.6 Towards Bureaucratic Reforms
13.7 Conclusion
13.8 Key Concepts
13.9 References and Further Reading
13.10 Activities

13.0 LEARNING OUTCOME

After reading this Unit, you will be able to:
 Highlight the different characteristics of Weberian bureaucracy
 Discuss the challenges to the Weber’s concept of bureaucracy
 Examine the Indian context of bureaucracy; and
 Analyse the need for reforming bureaucracy in the contemporary scenario

13.1 INTRODUCTION
In the recent times, the role of bureaucracy has undergone a lot of change for a number of
reasons. The changing role of the State in the contemporary context has brought about significant
changes in the profile of bureaucracy. With the opening up of the economy as well as the growing
accent on privatisation and rightsizing, there have been attempts to reduce the size of bureaucracy.
Also, there have been persistent demands for a responsive, accountable and efficient
administration. Thus, in the light of the changing scenario, the bureaucracy must reform itself.
There are many perspectives on bureaucracy, but none provides an alternative to the traditional
bureaucratic paradigm.

The bureaucracy technically has been an efficient form of organisation but is seen to have
exceeded its administrative powers due to its tendency towards self- aggrandisement, permanence
in employment, and nearness to the political executive. The administration, which comprises the
permanent and political executive, has taken up wider responsibilities with the emergence of the
Welfare State; the interests of the citizens are now being accorded priority. The self-seeking
bureaucrat is being replaced by the utility maximiser, and the traditional Weberian concept of
hierarchic and rule-bound bureaucracy has come in for intense criticism from all sides. This Unit
discusses the characteristics of a typical bureaucratic organisation. It highlights the changing role

1
of bureaucracy in the contemporary scenario. The Indian context of bureaucracy is also analysed
with regard to its role of delegated legislation and administrative adjudication.

13.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF BUREAUCRACY

Before discussing the general characteristics of bureaucracy, which have traditionally been
Weberian, we must delve into the defining features of bureaucracy. Herman Finer says that
bureaucracy is a “Professional body of officials, permanent, paid and skilled”. Arthur K. Davis
thinks bureaucracy is an “Integrated hierarchy of specialised offices defined by systematic rules,
an impersonal routinised structure wherein legitimised authority rests in the office and not in the
person or the incumbent”.

Harold Laski applied the term bureaucracy for a system of government, the control of which is so
completely in the hands of officials that their power jeopardises the liberties of ordinary citizens.
Marshall E. Dimock identified bureaucracy with institutions and large-scale organisations in
society. He describes bureaucracy as the “State of society in which institutions overshadow
individuals and simple family relationships; stage of development in which division of labour,
specialisation, organisation, hierarchy, planning and regimentation of large groups of individuals
either by voluntary or involuntary methods are the order of the day… Bureaucracy is simply
institutionalism written large …”

One perspective views bureaucracy as a generic organisational form. Defined in the Weberian
sense, bureaucracy is both public and private. The Bureaucratic Pathology School also makes no
distinction between public and private. It believes that bureaucracy stands as the enemy of
egalitarian passions and is ridden with pathologies or ills. The second perspective views
bureaucracy as public administrative agency. The bureaucracy tends to dissolve into ‘bureaus’
that interact with one another and with other actors. From a third perspective, the bureaucrats are
the personnel who constitute permanent government (Rockman, 1992).

In the views of Max Weber to whom we owe the bureaucratic theory, there are three types of
legitimation, each corresponding to a particular type of domination namely: Charismatic,
Traditional and Legal. His bureaucratic structure could be called the ideal type based on legal-
rational authority system. Weber laid emphasis on division of work, rules and regulations,
hierarchy, distinction between private and official, written documents and legal authority systems
in his description of bureaucratic organisation.

Major characteristics of bureaucracy, in line with Weber’s definition are:

Hierarchy: In a bureaucracy, activities based on specialisation are assigned to specific positions.

There is a clear-cut division of work, competence, authority, responsibility and other job
components. Each lower office is under the control and supervision of the higher office.

Professional Qualities: All officials possess qualities of merit and are selected on objective
criteria. They deal in an impersonal and formalistic manner in their relations with others and also
in execution of their official duties. They enjoy a permanent career with reasonable opportunities
of advancement with sufficient security of service.
Rules and Procedures: In bureaucracy, decisions are governed by a consistent system of abstract
rules, regulations and procedures, which are written, rational and impersonal. A bureaucrat’s
behaviour is guided by discipline and rules of conduct.

2
Specialisation: Bureaucratic tasks are divided into functionally distinct spheres, each furnished
with the requisite authority and sanctions. There is a functional specific division of labour.

Organisational Resources: The resources of the organisation are distinct from the bureaucrats
who cannot use them in their individual capacity. Official revenues and private income are strictly
separated.

The Weberian characteristics of bureaucracy have been found to be ‘ideal’ and hence not strictly
implementable. Besides examining the dysfunctionalties of this bureaucratic model, questions
have been raised as to whether ‘bureaucracy’ fits in with the management requirements of
‘development’. Crisis in the State’s functioning in terms of ‘big bureaucracy’ and its
consequences for the finances, infrastructure and development goals has called upon the need for
reforms. Accent on an efficient and effective delivery of services to the satisfaction of the citizens’
has provoked a series of reform initiatives variously known as New Public Administration, New
Public Management, Reinventing Government and Good Governance’. These themes are
discussed in Units 14, 15 and 17 of this Course. Contextually, Indian administration has to be
discussed differently, yet some of the changes of the Western developed States are having
repercussions on the Indian administrative scene. Before we discuss the Indian context, let us look
at the criticisms leveled against Weberian bureaucracy.

13.3 CHALLENGES TO WEBER’S CONCEPT OF

BUREAUCRACY
According to Max Weber, “Bureaucracy is universal social phenomenon and the means of
carrying community action to rationally ordered societal action”. Bureaucratic organisation, Max
Weber argued is the most technically efficient form of organisation. Many find this problematic,
as it is possible to identify many anomalies in the Weberian ideal type. Limited and fixed
jurisdiction can mean tunnel vision. Hierarchy can mean servile behaviour, as well as
communication and information distortion. Knowledge of the files can mean routine and living
by the book and so on (Rockman, op.cit.).

The Weberian claim of bureaucracy representing the highest extent of rationality did not fit in
with the real life administration. The day-to-day administration is not merely guided by
rationality but myriad of influences. The ideal paradigm of bureaucracy, as described by Weber,
is viewed with some structural dimensions and an achievement of purpose i.e. it is meant to
increase the efficiency of an organisation. But at the same time, it has been felt that it has
facilitated the growth of capitalism as it helps to carry out special administrative functions. The
bounded rationality has been described as irrelevant by the critics of Weber. The post- Weberian
view has emphasised on decentralisation and bottom-up approach. The contemporary view is not
a rigid model of administration; instead it aims at an administration, which is responsive,
responsible, accountable, transparent and result- oriented.
Some of the criticisms leveled against Weberian bureaucracy point out its weaknesses as an
organisational form. Its role in development administration has been questioned in this
connection. The Weberian model, according to critics, is subject to the dysfunctional
consequences of failing to take into account the individual or behavioural aspects of the people
who work within the organisation system. It has been pointed out that the ‘mechanistic’ system of
management closely resembles the Weberian model with its stress on division of tasks, hierarchy,
role-specificity and vertical communications. The organic system, on the other hand, fits in well
with unstable environmental conditions (Bhattacharya, 2003).

3
Exchange theories (Chester Barnard-Herbert Simon, H. Levinson), Group theories (Elton Mayo,
Rensis Likert), Value theories (Chris Argyris, and William Blake), and Situational theories
(Douglas McGregor, H. Leavitt) all critique Weber’s ideal type and try to evolve different forms
of organisations that could provide an alternative to the legal-rational type (Kramer, 1973). Victor
Thompson has summed up the negative aspects of Weberian theory with the term
‘bureaupathology’, a condition resulting from the interplay of Weberian organisational attributes
and the need to control that is inherently embodied in the hierarchy principle (Rockman, op.cit.).
Alvin Gouldner advances the thesis that bureaucratic techniques produce their own reactions. He
found that organisational rules tended to define the minimum levels of acceptable behaviour.
Robert Presthus is of the view that Weberian model is a product of alien culture, not quite
suitable for transplantation in the developing societies (Bhattacharya, 2003, op.cit.).

Weber’s model is viewed as more suitable for routine and repetitive work. Robert K. Merton feels
that reliance on rules in bureaucracy could lead to lack of flexibility and tendency to turn means
into ends. Peter Selznick talks of goal displacement resulting out of bifurcation of interest
between Central system and decentralised sub- units. The Marxists have been very critical of the
Weberian model. Bureaucracy, according to Karl Marx, is the one that works towards
private interests and not universal interest. Marx has put forth that bureaucracy with its specific
characteristics does not lead to the transformation of particular interest to general interest. Instead
of acting as a bridge between the State and the civil society, it leads to privatisation and
liberalisation of civil society. Marx has described bureaucracy as a formal structure expressing the
will of the State and not the individual. As per Marx, bureaucracy changes knowledge into secrecy
and competence into mystery. On top of it, the bureaucracy hinders government opinion from
reaching the people.

Another major critique of Weber’s bureaucracy has come from the Public Choice theorists. The
Public Choice approach deals with the possibility of Institutional Pluralism in the provision of
public goods and services. Plurality of government and public agencies is supported on the ground
of consumer preferences. Vincent Ostrom, major proponent of the Public Choice approach lays
emphasis on a concept of democratic administration. The Approach has questioned the self-
aggrandisement nature of bureaucracy. It has demanded the pruning or downsizing or passing on
of governmental functions to the private sector. It highlights individual preferences and describes
bureaucrats as utility maximisers who first look at their own interests rather than those of the
organisation.
The Public Choice approach believes that all bureaucrats are self-interest maximizers. Since the
self-interest maximising bureaucrat and the vote maximising politician do not act in the collective
interest of the society, the society suffers. The Public Choice approach has sensitised us to the
hard fact that public agencies live and function in a highly politicised environment. It also
questions the paradigm of bureaucratically run administration. The pathologies of bureaucracy
limited to a single centre and a source of power have been criticised. Public Choice perspective
looks at the State from citizens’ point of view i.e. if it is the case of production or delivery of
public goods, then it should be left to the choice of public rather the administrator - politician
combine.

Weberian bureaucratic theory has been criticised by Claus Offe who points out “Efficiency is no
longer defined as following the ruler but as ‘causing of effects’…. Welfare State’s administrative
policy becomes dependent on extra-legal legitimations….” Dennis F. Thompson observes, “Many
of the values we associate with democracy stand sharply opposed to hierarchy, specialisation and
impersonality we ascribe to modern bureaucracy (Cf Bhattacharya, 2002).
A significant post-Weberian development is the impact of Critical Theory on public

4
administration. It seeks replacement of the stifling effect of techno-administrative domination of
bureaucracy. It pleads for debureaucratisation and democratisation of administration through free
flow of communication. Shah Martin’s Managing Without Managers is also an important work,
as it advocates a strategy of redistribution of ‘managing’ functions, and an increase in the
frequency of doing functions (ibid.).

The idea of a sheltered bureaucracy employed for life has itself been challenged. The bureaucratic
form of organisation having a monopoly over the provision of goods and services has been
questioned, as the role of government need not necessarily confine to being a direct service
provider in the globalisation context. The bureaucracy can operate indirectly with non-government
and non-state agencies working for a wide range of activities.

Scholars like Warren Bennis, predict that bureaucracy is likely to go out of use, in the wake of
new social system. This forecast is based on the evolutionary principles that every age develops an
organisational form appropriate to its genius. The vaccum created will be filled up by temporary
work-systems. As per Bennis, bureaucracy does not adequately allow for the personal growth
and the development of mature personalities, it develops conformity and ‘group-think’, its systems
of control and authority are hopelessly outdated, it does not take into account the informal
organisation, and suffers from distorted communication, non-assimilation of Information
Technology, non-utilisation of human resource etc. (Cf Bhattacharya, 2003, op.cit.). Even though
Weber’s model has been severely criticised, its major characteristics are still found in the
developing countries like India who are yet to find an indigenous bureaucratic paradigm, which
suits their context.

13.4 ROLE OF BUREAUCRACY IN INDIA

Bureaucracy thus is a much-criticised concept. All writings on bureaucracy are either in the form
Weber’s analyses of bureaucratic organisation or a critique of Weber’s bureaucratic ideal type.
Against this backdrop, the Indian bureaucracy also needs to be analysed. The growing impact of
liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation, increased complexity in administrative problems,
influx of Information Technology, and socio-cultural upheavals are bringing in a lot of changes in
the complexion of Indian bureaucracy.

Some of the features of bureaucracy in India could be summarised as:

 Strong binding character

 Non-partisan advice to political leadership in the midst of political instability and

uncertainties

 Administrative and managerial capacity of services

 Effective coordination between institutions of governance

 Leadership at different levels of administration

 Service delivery at the cutting-edge level

 Provision of ‘continuity and change’ in administration (Satish, 2004)

Before highlighting the changing complexion of Indian bureaucracy, let us first understand the
major role of bureaucracy, especially in the policy process. We have studied about this in our last

5
Unit. Over here, we will mainly discuss the role of bureaucracy with respect to delegated
legislation and administrative adjudication. We have read in the previous Unit that certain
characteristics of bureaucracy put them at an advantage vis-à-vis the political executive. As a
result, policy making is merely drafted in the form of broad outline or framework. The details are
left for the bureaucracy to be filled up as per their knowledge and expertise. Thus, legislation
has come into the hands of bureaucracy. Let us discuss how and why it is so:

Delegated Legislation

It literally means the exercise of legislative powers by a subordinate authority. Over the years,
there has been tremendous growth in the legislative powers of the permanent executive.
Bureaucracy has been often described as the backbone of policy-making process. The bureaucracy
in theory at least has no legislative function but it carries out certain legislative functions on the
behalf of the authority given to it by the legislature. The permanent executive or the bureaucracy
acts as delegates and carry out delegated authority. The legislature due to lack of time, pressure of
work, and technical nature of policies is not able to provide the public policy with details; hence
the rule making power is conferred on the bureaucracy, which is required to fill in the blanks.
Though the delegation of legislation is observed in various technical areas, the process of
delegation is not just concerned with technique but also the content.

There has been a tremendous growth of delegated legislation as it is inevitable in the modern
society. But, it seems to be posing serious problems due to the increasing clout of the
bureaucracy. The delegation of certain powers might lead to delegation of unlimited powers as
the bureaucrats may begin to overlook what common people want and instead focus on
requirements of the influential parties.

The chief argument against delegated legislation is that it may lead to despotism of the
administrative authorities by vesting in them the power to legislate. It has been even termed as
‘New Despotism’, as it is felt that the bureaucrats may prefer administrative convenience over and
above the concepts of fairness and justice for the people. Passing on of mere skeleton laws to the
bureaucracy could then become detrimental to the general interests of people and the
organisational goals. Rule making by bureaucracy may even overlook what is politically feasible
and what is required in the view of social justice and equity. Thus, it is necessary to exercise
control over delegated legislation to the bureaucrats in order to eliminate the chances of abuse of
power by them. Administrative adjudication is a method to control delegated legislation.

Administrative Adjudication
Just as the power to make rules and regulations under statutory authority is a quasi- legislative
power in the hands of the administrative agencies, so is Administrative Adjudication a quasi-
judicial power vested in them. Administrative Adjudication is not guided by definite legal
precepts but by certain statutory standards of common good and public interest. The adjudicator is
predisposed in favour of the policy that he has to apply. He can initiate inquisitional or regulatory
action of his own accord.
The basic reasons for the growth of Administrative Adjudication are the same as that of Delegated
Legislation. The greatest safeguard against arbitrariness of Administrative Adjudication is the
powers of the judiciary to review. Along with the courts, various administrative bodies have
emerged to carry out the function of adjudication. It has been recognised as a device to ensure
justice to citizens due to enormous expansion of government functions.
The Administrative Adjudication in India comprises of:

6
 Administrative Tribunals

 Publicity and Consultation

 Parliamentary Scrutiny

 Judicial Review

i) Administrative Tribunals

The Administrative Tribunals have come up in order to maintain a balance between individual
rights and public welfare. They are agencies created by specific executive enactments with the
objective of discharging quasi- judicial duties. They help the common person to obtain cheap,
fair and impartial hearing when adversely affected by an administrative action. As the powers
of the bureaucrats have increased, cases of misuse of power are on the rise. In order to curtail this
despotism and build accountability towards people, tribunals have been established. An
Administrative Tribunal is empowered to exercise any adjudicating power of the State. The
Tribunals help to attain speedy and cheap justice. However, the institution of Administrative
Tribunal has been only a qualified success. They seem to be working only in a few areas of
economic administration and have not extended their jurisdiction. Plus, they have been criticised
for being secretive and protecting the interests of the government.

ii) Publicity and Consultation

The procedure of rule making should invariably provide for consultation with the public and the
special interests affected. The techniques that could be used are:

 Obtaining the views of those going to be affected by the rule-making by submission

of draft rules to the stakeholders
 Holding meetings and conferences after due notice to the interested individuals and
organisations

 Giving public hearings to any interested person or party or stakeholder who wishes to
testify

iii) Parliamentary Scrutiny

Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation is also done by Parliamentary Committees such as

Parliamentary Accounts Committee, Estimates Committee, and Committee on Public
Undertakings etc.

The Delegated Legislation could be laid:

 Before the Parliament with no directions
 In the Parliament subject to annulment of the rules in question by hostile resolution
of either house within specified period.
 With the provision that rules shall not be operative until approved by resolution of both
the Houses
 In the form of Draft for a prescribed number of days

iv) Judicial Review

7
The function of the courts is to see that the exercise of the delegated authority is not broader than
the terms of delegation. Otherwise, rules made can be declared ultravires and void. Another test
applied by the courts to the validity of delegated legislation is that of reasonableness. This confers
on the courts a very wide discretion and power of scrutiny extending both to the factual
background as well as legal issues involved in the rule making. We will read more on Judicial
Review in Unit 18 of this Course.

13.5 CHANGING CONCEPT OF INDIAN BUREAUCRACY

Despite an elaborate system of Administrative Adjudication, bureaucracy in India has been
criticised for being authoritarian in outlook and a monopoliser of power. The track record of
bureaucratic performance has not been very good in India. Many scholars have pointed out the
maladies afflicting it such as red tapism, corruption, hierarchy, insensitivity and insularity. The
bureaucracy has been rather slow in adapting to the social, economic and technological
transformation in the country.

In India, as has been observed; bureaucracy still seems to be suffering from the hangover of the
colonial era. Coming from a narrow social base, bureaucracy is unable to appreciate the problems
of development, especially at the rural level. It has generally taken shelter under conservative
neutrality (Bhattacharya, 2002). It is believed to be incapable of appreciating the problems of
development and is averse to administrative requirements of rural areas. The study by Pai
Panandiker and Kshirsagar has brought out some interesting findings about the relationship
between bureaucracy and development administration that are relevant even today. It suggests:

(i) Bureaucracies involved in the developmental tasks at the field level tend to be structurally
less rigid and behaviorally more flexible than headquarter bureaucracies.
(ii) Bureaucracies essentially in a regulatory and other non-development agencies will tend to
be structurally more rigid and behaviourally less flexible (Cf Bhattacharya, 2000).

The bureaucracy in India suffers from certain strange paradoxes. It is a combination of rigid
adherence to procedure and a low resistance to varied pressures, pulls and intervention. The Indian
bureaucracy is characterised by increased self-importance, indifference and an obsession with the
binding and inflexible authority of departmental decisions, precedents, or arrangements. The
bureaucracy is often described to be ‘bloated’ and their size is believed to be disproportional to
their contribution. It is felt that bureaucrats are a law unto themselves. They hide behind their
papers and maintain secrecy on various public dealings. Due to which their misdeeds are never
found and if exposed they take shelter behind the committees and commissions.

Unfortunately, bureaucracy in India is struggling to cope with certain maladies that have now
inflicted the bureaucracy all around the globe. International studies on the functioning of
bureaucracies point out the following problems:
 Endemic overstaffing and ill-equipped service, accompanied by unsustainable staffing
expenditure
 Lack of performance culture and inappropriate performance appraisal
 Systemic inconsistence in promotion and empanelment
 Lack of adequate transparency and accountability procedures
 Political interference resulting in arbitrary and whimsical transfers

8
 A gradual erosion in public service values, ethics and morale (World Bank, 1994, (Cf
Satish, op.cit.)

The specific maladies of the Indian bureaucracy include politicisation and communalisation of the
civil services, dereliction of duty, wastefulness, lack of motivation for productivity. The
functioning of bureaucracy has been replete with the failure to eliminate the colonial legacy, the
failure to ensure efficiency and effectiveness, and the failure to invoke people’s participation and,
at the top of it, the failure to eliminate corruption (See: Bava, 1997).

To rectify the situation, there have been many attempts at reforming the system. It was in 1949,
when N. Gopalaswami Ayyenger suggested improvement in methods of transaction of
government business. It recommended the setting up of an Organisation and Methods (O & M)
Division in the Central government. A.D. Gorwala in his Report in 1951 pointed out that clean,
efficient and impartial administration was the first condition to the success of democratic
planning. He suggested reorganisation of the administrative machinery to ensure greater speed,
effectiveness and responsiveness.

Paul Appleby in his Reports in 1953 and 1956 also dealt with reforming Indian administrative
system through the setting up of an O & M Division in the government. Asoka Chanda in 1954
suggested ways to removes wastage and delay in execution of projects. In 1964, K. Santhanam
Report came up with several recommendations to curb corruption. The Administrative Reforms
Commission (ARC) in 1966 also made recommendations on specific aspects of administration.

The ARC has laid down the following norms:

 The obligation of every bureaucrat or public servant to implement faithfully all policies
and decisions of the ministers even if these be contrary to the advice tendered by him

 The freedom of public servants to express themselves frankly by tendering advice to their
superiors including the ministers; and

 The observance by public servants of principles of neutrality, impartiality and anonymity

The Economic Administrative Reforms Commission under L.K. Jha (1983) advocated the need
for accountability so that greater importance was given to performance than mere adherence to
rules and procedures. The objective was to introduce modern techniques of management in the
areas of financial planning and human resource management. At the Conference of the Chief
Secretaries of States/Union Territories on Effective and Responsive Administration in 1996 and at
the Conference of Chief Ministers in 1997, it was recognised that governance has to extend
beyond conventional bureaucracies and has to involve citizens at all levels to empower and inform
the public and disadvantaged groups so as to ensure service delivery and programme execution
through autonomous elected local bodies (Minocha, 1998).

The Fifth Pay Commission (1996) was a clear departure from the ARC, as it made a more
thorough analysis of administrative set up by going deeper into the work methods, recruitment,
promotion procedures, and pay structures of the civil servants. The Fifth Central Pay Commission
gave several recommendations to enhance the work procedures, work environment and
administrative structures of the bureaucracy. It suggested that the rightsizing of government and
structural reforms of the bureaucracy could get off to a flying start if the government decides to
privatise both public sector undertakings as also departmental enterprises within a strict time
frame, while at the same time contracting out some of its own activities to the private sector. It
laid emphasis on automation and computerisation to reduce paper work. Right to have access to

9
information for all the citizens was also emphasised.

The reform process in Indian bureaucracy has also been precipitated by the Liberalisation,
privatisation and globalisation scenario. The recent emphasis on New Public Management, e-
governance, Good Governance, New Public Service has led to a shift in the thinking process on
bureaucracy. The consequences are slowly beginning to show in India. The norms of neutrality
and commitment are changing. The neutrality versus commitment debate has come to the fore.
The neutrality doctrine is being redefined to meet the needs of civil service, where a bureaucrat is
expected to combine substantive expertise with commitment. Neutrality, as has been observed,
should not mean political naiveté, but a sufficient degree of political awareness and an ability to
operate within the system without wearing a party label or party cap. Bureaucrats have to insist on
more transparency and accountability in the government (Pinto, 1997).

The concept of commitment, which was introduced by Ms. Indira Gandhi, former Prime Minister
of India, aimed at rectifying the insensitive attitude of bureaucracy to the developmental issues.
The aim was to make the bureaucracy committed to the national objectives and goals with full
sincerity. Ms. Gandhi described bureaucracy more as a stumbling block in the progress of the
country. It was realised that the progressive goals of the government cannot be realised unless
civil servants are fully committed to the demands of the people and political process.
Thus, the point to ponder over is the ‘foci’ of this commitment. Where should it lie? To the ruling
party or to their own political ideology or national goals? Should they commit themselves to the
views and philosophy of ministers in charge or should they independently focus on the
requirements of the people. Commitment has to be identified with the public interest rather than
the minister. The drive towards achievement of various socio-economic goals requires a strong
commitment from the bureaucrat. The doctrine of commitment aims at diverting the bureaucrats
from their leanings towards the politicians and guiding them towards the welfare of people (See:
B. Guy Peters, 2001). In reality, however, this has proved to be a myth. Bureaucracy is still
interested in feathering its own nest and inflating its own budget. The very premise of Public
Choice theory still holds true. Self-aggrandising bureaucrats and self- seeking politicians make a
mockery of the very basis of government. This analysis is not unfounded in the Indian context.
As we have read in our introductory Unit, the new trends in globalisation have brought about a
major change in the role of the State, which has become a facilitator, enabler, coordinator besides
being the provider of the structures and processes responsible for production of goods and
services. In fact, the State with its changing role has become functionally loaded. This overload of
State has resulted in an ever- growing, self-aggrandising, and self-seeking bureaucracy. But, the
bureaucrat who has enjoyed security and anonymity at the cost of transparency, responsiveness
and accountability uptil now is in for a face-lift. As we mentioned earlier, the scenario around is
changing under the rubric of New Public Management (NPM) reforms where more emphasis
is on rightsizing bureaucracy by making it transparent, efficient and accountable. We will read
more on this in our subsequent Units 14, 15 and 16.
How far this reform package will be effective is the question only time will answer. Nevertheless,
the progressive critics of bureaucracy direct their attacks primarily against the bureaucratisation of
corporate big business. It is necessary to curb the power of the managerial oligarchy by
government action. It is a not limited to government. It is a universal phenomenon, present both in
business and in government (Sunghan Im, 2001).
Meanwhile, there is a need to improve efficiency, morale, integrity and responsiveness of the
civil service through a series of measures, which focus on:
 Agreement with the political leadership on institutionalised systems for stability of tenure
and placement of officials

10
 Comprehensive assessment of various factors which have a bearing on motivation,
incentives, productivity and working conditions of the civil services on the basis of
recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission.
 Steps to curb corrupt practices, prosecute offenders quickly, and to install a regime of self-
regulation through a Code of Ethics for Public Services (Sundaram, 1997).

13.6 TOWARDS BUREAUCRATIC REFORMS

Bureaucracy plays a central role in socio-economic development and nation building. It has
been observed that the prototypes of patronage, guardian and caste bureaucracy do not commend
themselves for public administration today. We are still raced with the necessity of a basic choice.
The choice is between the bureaucrat as a functionary and the bureaucrat as common person. Do
we want a bureaucracy that has the courage of its integrity or do we want a bureaucracy with its
ear to the ground? (Rao and Mathur, 1999). This is a major issue that needs deliberation.

The bureaucracy has been the backbone of our system, which is undergoing transformation due to
the enhancement of the role of the people in decision-making and the changing role of the State.
Bureaucrats are confronted with new inputs from contemporary socio-economic and political
scene. It is therefore impossible to adhere to the Weberian rigid, rule-bound, and hierarchical
model of bureaucracy. Instead, the need of the hour is transparent and accountable bureaucratic
system. The resources at the disposal of bureaucracy are new channels of information, power of
decision-making and political support. These need to be directed towards the achievement of
organisational and developmental goals.

Modernising the administrative system and reorganising the bureaucratic structure has been the
two-dimensional strategy adopted by the political leadership in most developing countries to
revamp their bureaucracy. The nature of bureaucracy in a single party dominant rule and in a
coalition party system has to be different and contextual. It throws open the relevance of rational
bureaucracy in the context of the Third World, as policies may be lost in the thicket of
bureaucratic infighting or twisted out of recognition by the bureaucratic apathy, and
misunderstanding of opposition. Creating and maintaining a responsive and responsible
bureaucracy that caters to the general needs and specified goals of developing societies has thus
become one of the most complex problems (Sharma, 1999).

The renewed role of bureaucracy must satisfy the dual requirement of ‘capacity’ and ‘control’.
Capacity indicates the ability of an administrative unit to achieve its objective efficiently. Control
refers to accountability due to ‘higher authority’, most particularly to elected representative in the
legislative branch. The Contingency approach, it has been pointed out, seeks to understand the
interrelationships within and among the subsystems as well as between the organisation and its
environment, and to define patterns of relationship of variables. It recommends a continuous
study to find out how changes in external environment are likely to influence the
interdependencies among sub-systems and thus their functions (Halachmi, 1980). This approach
needs to be explored further in order to draw its benefits for the functioning of bureaucracy.

An alternative to the market model as well as traditional models of bureaucracy needs to be

sought. The recent reforms in Hongkong Civil Service could be emulated. In Hongkong, though
the bureaucrats are recruited on a permanent basis, their continuation in the job is subjected to
verifying the performance indicators from time to time. The performance of bureaucracy thus
could be improved by introducing performance measurement, streamlining departmental

11
enquiries, overhauling grievance procedures, linking performance with incentives, implementing
Citizens’ Charters, bettering service delivery, involving people, implementing a code of conduct,
encouraging decentralisation, devolving functions, and strengthening capacity building. The New
Public Management and New Public Service approaches, about which you will read in Units 14
and 15, talk about reforming bureaucracy by highlighting these very features.

Fred Riggs had argued that the existence of career bureaucracy without corresponding strength in
the political institutions does not necessary lead to administrative efficiency (Cf Bhattacharya,
2002, op.cit.). Thus, what is needed is all round structural, procedural and behavioural changes
in the bureaucratic set up so that the bureaucracy is able to function in a participatory,
responsive and sensitive environment.

To make the bureaucracy adapt well to the development tasks, changes are needed both on
structural and behavioural fronts. Structurally, de-emphasis of hierarchy has been suggested to get
rid of the conventional organisational pyramid, the centralised set up and interpersonal conflicts.
Behaviourally, as has been pointed out, the bureaucratic personnel need to be sensitised to the
needs of the disadvantaged and weaker sections, motivated to take up new and innovative steps
towards administrative reforms, and appreciated for their initiative and zeal. There is a need for
development bureaucracy, which is not insular and inward looking in approach. Administrative
changes are required to make the bureaucracy goal-centric, results- specific and people-oriented.

13.7 CONCLUSION
Bureaucracy is the backbone of Indian administrative system. Its complexion is changing with the
change in the socio-cultural and economic scenario. The globalisation context has thrown open
several questions that Indian bureaucracy must address in the right earnest. It must reinvent itself
in the light of changing norms of neutrality and commitment, accent on NPM, Good Governance
and New Public Service as well as rightsizing and responsiveness. Weberian ideal type has been
subjected to severe criticism but an alternative to it is yet to be found. Traces of the traditional
Weberian paradigm are thus found in all countries including India, which is grappling with
many bureaucratic pathologies. The reform efforts have not been able to bear adequate fruits. The
developing countries like India must find their own indigenous models of bureaucracy to meet the
needs of their social and economic set up. This Unit discussed some of these issues.

13.8 KEY CONCEPTS

Charismatic Authority
Max Weber described charismatic authority as one of the three major types of authority in his
bureaucratic set up. The other two being traditional and legal- rational. Charismatic authority is
power, legitimised on the basis of a leader’s exceptional personal qualities or the demonstration
of extraordinary insight and accomplishment by the leader, which inspire loyalty and obedience
from the followers.

Self-aggrandisement
An act undertaken to increase one’s power and influence or to draw attention to one’s own
importance.

12