Bureaucracy (/bjʊəˈrɒkrəsi/ⓘbure-OK-rə-see) is a system oforganization where laws or regulatory authority are implemented by civil servants, non-elected officials.[1] Historically, a bureaucracy was a government administration managed by departments staffed with non-elected officials.[2] Today, bureaucracy is the administrative system governing any large institution, whether publicly owned or privately owned.[3] Thepublic administration in many jurisdictions is an example of bureaucracy, as is any centralized hierarchical structure of an institution, includingcorporations,societies,nonprofit organizations, andclubs.
There are two key dilemmas in bureaucracy. The first dilemma relates to whether bureaucrats should be autonomous or directly accountable to their political masters.[4] The second dilemma relates to bureaucrats' responsibility to follow preset rules, and what degree of latitude they may have to determine appropriate solutions for circumstances that are unaccounted for in advance.[4]
Various commentators have argued for the necessity of bureaucracies in modern society. The German sociologistMax Weber argued that bureaucracy constitutes the most efficient and rational way in which human activity can be organized and that systematic processes and organized hierarchies are necessary to maintain order, maximizeefficiency, and eliminate favoritism. On the other hand, Weber also saw unfettered bureaucracy as a threat toindividual freedom, with the potential of trapping individuals in an impersonal "iron cage" of rule-based, rational control.[5][6]
The termbureaucracy originated in theFrench language: it combines the French wordbureau –'desk' or'office' – with the Greek wordκράτος (kratos) –'rule' or 'political power'.[7] The French economistJacques Claude Marie Vincent de Gournay coined the word in the mid-18th century.[8] Gournay never wrote the term down but a letter from a contemporary later quoted him:
The late M. de Gournay... sometimes used to say: "We have an illness in France which bids fair to play havoc with us; this illness is called bureaumania." Sometimes he used to invent a fourth or fifth form of government under the heading of "bureaucracy."
The first knownEnglish-language use dates to 1818[7] with Irish novelistLady Morgan referring to the apparatus used by the British government to subjugate Ireland as "the Bureaucratie, or office tyranny, by which Ireland has so long been governed".[10] By the mid-19th century the word appeared in a more neutral sense, referring to a system ofpublic administration in which offices were held by unelected career officials. In this contextbureaucracy was seen as a distinct form ofmanagement, often subservient to amonarchy.[11]
In the 1920s the German sociologistMax Weber expanded the definition to include any system of administration conducted by trained professionals according to fixed rules.[11] Weber saw bureaucracy as a relatively positive development; however, by 1944 theAustrian economistLudwig von Mises opined in the context of his experience in theNazi regime that the termbureaucracy was "always applied with an opprobrious connotation",[12] and by 1957 the American sociologistRobert Merton suggested that the termbureaucrat had become an "epithet, aSchimpfwort" in some circumstances.[13]
The wordbureaucracy is also used in politics and government with a disapproving tone to disparage official rules that appear to make it difficult—by insistence on procedure and compliance to rule, regulation, and law—to get things done. In workplaces, the word is used very often to blame complicated rules, processes, and written work that are interpreted as obstacles rather than safeguards and accountability assurances.[14] Socio-bureaucracy would then refer to certain social influences that may affect the function of a society.[15]
In modern usage, modern bureaucracy has been defined as comprising four features:[16]
hierarchy (clearly defined spheres of competence and divisions of labor)
continuity (a structure where administrators have a full-time salary and advance within the structure)
impersonality (prescribed rules and operating rules rather than arbitrary actions)
expertise (officials are chosen according to merit, have been trained, and hold access to knowledge)
InChina, when theQin dynasty (221–206 BC) unified China under theLegalist system, the emperor assigned administration to dedicated officials rather than nobility, ending feudalism in China, replacing it with a centralized, bureaucratic government. The form of government created by the first emperor and his advisors was used by later dynasties to structure their own government.[19][20] Under this system, the government thrived, as talented individuals could be more easily identified in the transformed society. TheHan dynasty (202 BC – 220 AD) established a complicated bureaucracy based on the teachings ofConfucius, who emphasized the importance ofritual in family, relationships, and politics.[21] With each subsequent dynasty, the bureaucracy evolved. In 165 BC,Emperor Wen introduced the first method of recruitment to civil service through examinations.Emperor Wu (r. 141–87 BC) cemented the ideology ofConfucius into mainstream governance by installing a system of recommendation and nomination in government service known asxiaolian, and a national academy[22][23][24] where officials would select candidates to take part in an examination of theConfucian classics, from which Emperor Wu would select officials.[25]
In theSui dynasty (581–618) and the subsequentTang dynasty (618–907) theshi class would begin to present itself by means of the fully standardizedcivil service examination system, of partial recruitment of those who passedstandard exams and earned an official degree. Yet recruitment by recommendations to office was still prominent in both dynasties. It was not until theSong dynasty (960–1279) that the recruitment of those who passed the exams and earned degrees was given greater emphasis and significantly expanded.[26] During theSong dynasty (960–1279) the bureaucracy becamemeritocratic. Following theSong reforms,competitive examinations took place to determine which candidates qualified to hold given positions.[27] The imperial examination system lasted until 1905, six years before theQing dynasty collapsed, marking the end of China's traditional bureaucratic system.[28]
Uzun Hasan's conquest of most of mainland Iran shifted the seat of power to the east, where theAq Qoyunlu adopted Iranian customs for administration and culture. In the Iranian areas, Uzun Hasan preserved the previous bureaucratic structure along with its secretaries, who belonged to families that had in a number of instances served under different dynasties for several generations. The four top civil posts of the Aq Qoyunlu were all occupied by Iranians, which under Uzun Hasan included: the vizier, who led the great council (divan); themostawfi al-mamalek, high-ranking financial accountants; themohrdar, who affixed the state seal; and themarakur'stable master', who supervised the royal court. Through the use of his increasing revenue, Uzun Hasan was able to buy the approval of theulama (clergy) and the mainly Iranian urban elite, while also taking care of the impoverished rural inhabitants.[34]
TheSafavid state was one of checks and balance, both within the government and on a local level. At the apex of this system was the Shah, with total power over the state, legitimized by his bloodline as asayyid, or descendant ofMuhammad. To ensure transparency and avoid decisions being made that circumvented the Shah, a complex system of bureaucracy and departmental procedures had been put in place that prevented fraud. Every office had a deputy or superintendent, whose job was to keep records of all actions of the state officials and report directly to the Shah. The Shah himself exercised his own measures for keeping his ministers under control by fostering an atmosphere of rivalry and competitive surveillance. And since the Safavid society was meritocratic, and successions seldom were made on the basis of heritage, this meant that government offices constantly felt the pressure of being under surveillance and had to make sure they governed in the best interest of their leader, and not merely their own.
TheOttomans adopted Persian bureaucratic traditions and culture.
The Russianautocracy survived theTime of Troubles and the rule of weak or corrupt tsars because of the strength of the government's central bureaucracy. Government functionaries continued to serve, regardless of the ruler'slegitimacy or theboyar faction controlling the throne. In the 17th century, the bureaucracy expanded dramatically. The number of government departments (prikazy; sing.,prikaz ) increased from twenty-two in 1613 to eighty by mid-century. Although the departments often had overlapping and conflictingjurisdictions, the central government, throughprovincial governors, was able to control and regulate all social groups, as well as trade, manufacturing, and even theEastern Orthodox Church.
Thetsarist bureaucracy, alongside themilitary, thejudiciary and theRussian Orthodox Church, played a major role in solidifying and maintaining the rule of theTsars in theTsardom of Russia (1547–1721) and in theRussian Empire (1721–1917). In the 19th century, the forces of change brought on by theIndustrial Revolution propelled many countries, especially in Europe, to significant social changes. However, due to the conservative nature of the Tsarist regime and its desire to maintain power and control, social change in Russia lagged behind that of Europe.[35]
Russian-speakers referred to bureaucrats aschinovniki (чиновники) because of the rank orchin (чин) which they held.[36]
The government of theAshanti Empire was built upon a sophisticated bureaucracy inKumasi, with separateministries which saw to the handling of state affairs. Ashanti's Foreign Office was based in Kumasi. Despite the small size of the office, it allowed the state to pursue complex negotiations with foreign powers. The Office was divided into departments that handled Ashanti relations separately with theBritish,French,Dutch, andArabs. Scholars of Ashanti history, such as Larry Yarak andIvor Wilkes, disagree over the power of this sophisticated bureaucracy in comparison to theAsantehene. However, both scholars agree that it was a sign of a highly developed government with a complex system ofchecks and balances.[37]
Instead of the inefficient and often corrupt system oftax farming that prevailed inabsolutist states such as France, theExchequer was able to exert control over the entire system of tax revenue and government expenditure.[38] By the late 18th century, the ratio of fiscal bureaucracy to population in Britain was approximately 1 in 1300, almost four times larger than the second most heavily bureaucratized nation, France.[39]Thomas Taylor Meadows, Britain's consul inGuangzhou, argued in hisDesultory Notes on the Government and People of China (1847) that "the long duration of the Chinese empire is solely and altogether owing to the good government which consists in the advancement of men of talent and merit only", and that the British must reform their civil service by making the institutionmeritocratic.[40] Influenced by the ancient Chineseimperial examination, theNorthcote–Trevelyan Report of 1854 recommended that recruitment should be on the basis of merit determined through competitive examination, candidates should have a solid general education to enable inter-departmental transfers, and promotion should be through achievement rather than "preferment, patronage, or purchase".[41][40] This led to implementation ofHis Majesty's Civil Service as a systematic, meritocratic civil service bureaucracy.[42]
In the British civil service, just as it was in China, entrance to the civil service was usually based on a general education in ancient classics, which similarly gave bureaucrats greater prestige. The Cambridge-Oxford ideal of the civil service was identical to the Confucian ideal of a general education in world affairs through humanism.[43] Well into the 20th century, classics, literature, history and language remained heavily favoured in British civil service examinations.[44] In the period of 1925–1935, 67 percent of British civil service entrants consisted of such graduates.[45] Like the Chinese model's consideration of personal values, the British model also took personal physique and character into account.[46]
Like the British, the development of French bureaucracy was influenced by the Chinese system.[47] UnderLouis XIV of France, the old nobility had neither power nor political influence, their only privilege being exemption from taxes. The dissatisfied noblemen complained about this "unnatural" state of affairs, and discovered similarities betweenabsolute monarchy and bureaucraticdespotism.[48] With the translation ofConfucian texts during theEnlightenment, the concept of ameritocracy reached intellectuals in the West, who saw it as an alternative to the traditionalancien regime of Europe.[49] Western perception of China even in the 18th century admired the Chinese bureaucratic system as favourable over European governments for its seeming meritocracy;Voltaire claimed that the Chinese had "perfected moral science" andFrançois Quesnay advocated an economic and political system modeled after that of the Chinese.[50]The governments of China, Egypt, Peru and EmpressCatherine II were regarded as models of Enlightened Despotism, admired by such figures as Diderot, D'Alembert and Voltaire.[48]
Napoleonic France adopted this meritocracy system[49] and soon saw a rapid and dramatic expansion of government, accompanied by the rise of the French civil service and its complex systems of bureaucracy. This phenomenon became known as "bureaumania". In the early 19th century,Napoleon attempted to reform the bureaucracies of France and other territories under his control by the imposition of the standardizedNapoleonic Code. But paradoxically, that led to even further growth of the bureaucracy.[51]
French civil service examinations adopted in the late 19th century were also heavily based on general cultural studies. These features have been likened to the earlier Chinese model.[46]
By the mid-19th century, bureaucratic forms of administration were firmly in place across the industrialized world. Thinkers likeJohn Stuart Mill andKarl Marx began to theorize about the economic functions and power-structures of bureaucracy in contemporary life.Max Weber was the first to endorse bureaucracy as a necessary feature of modernity, and by the late 19th century bureaucratic forms had begun their spread from government to other large-scale institutions.[11]
The 1980s brought a backlash against perceptions of "big government" and the associated bureaucracy. Politicians likeMargaret Thatcher andRonald Reagan gained power by promising to eliminate government regulatory bureaucracies, which they saw as overbearing, and return economic production to a more purely capitalistic mode, which they saw as more efficient.[53][54] In the business world, managers likeJack Welch gained fortune and renown by eliminating bureaucratic structures inside corporations.[55] Still, in the modern world, most organized institutions rely on bureaucratic systems to manage information, process records, and administer complex systems, although the decline of paperwork and the widespread use of electronic databases is transforming the way bureaucracies function.[56]
Karl Marx theorized about the role and function of bureaucracy in hisCritique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, published in 1843. InPhilosophy of Right,Hegel had supported the role of specialized officials inpublic administration, although he never used the termbureaucracy himself. By contrast, Marx was opposed to bureaucracy. Marx posited that whilecorporate and government bureaucracy seem to operate in opposition, in actuality they mutually rely on one another to exist. He wrote that "The Corporation is civil society's attempt to become state; but the bureaucracy is the state which has really made itself into civil society."[57]
Leon Trotsky developed a critical theory of the emergingSoviet bureaucracy during the early years of the Soviet Union. According to political scientist Thomas M. Twiss, Trotsky associated bureaucratism withauthoritarianism, excessivecentralism andconservatism. Social theorist Martin Krygier had noted the impact of Trotsky's post-1923 writings in shaping receptive views of bureaucracy among later Marxists and many non-Marxists. Twiss argued that Trotsky's theory of Soviet bureaucracy was essential for a study of Soviet history and understanding the process of capitalist restoration in Russia and Eastern Europe. Political scientist, Baruch Knei-Paz argued Trotsky had, above all others, written "to show the historical and social roots of Stalinism" as a bureaucratic system.[58]
One of the predictions made by Trotsky in his 1936 work,The Revolution Betrayed, was that the USSR would come before a disjuncture: either the toppling of the ruling bureaucracy by means of a political revolution, or capitalist restoration led by the bureaucracy:
The fall of the present bureaucratic dictatorship, if it were not replaced by a new socialist power, would thus mean a return to capitalist relations with a catastrophic decline of industry and culture.[59]
Writing in the early 1860s, political scientistJohn Stuart Mill theorized that successful monarchies were essentially bureaucracies, and found evidence of their existence inImperial China, theRussian Empire, and the regimes ofEurope. Mill referred to bureaucracy as a distinct form of government, separate from representative democracy. He believed bureaucracies had certain advantages, most importantly the accumulation of experience in those who actually conduct the affairs. Nevertheless, he believed this form of governance compared poorly to representative government, as it relied on appointment rather than direct election. Mill wrote that ultimately the bureaucracy stifles the mind, and that "a bureaucracy always tends to become a pedantocracy."[60]
The German sociologistMax Weber (1864-1920) was the first to study bureaucracy formally, and his works led to the popularization of this term.[62] In his essayBureaucracy,[63] published in hismagnum opus,Economy and Society in 1921, Weber described manyideal-typical forms ofpublic administration, government, and business. His ideal-typical bureaucracy, whether public or private, is characterized by:
regular and continuous execution of assigned tasks
all decisions and powers specified and restricted by regulations
officials with expert training in their fields
career advancement dependent on technical qualifications
qualifications evaluated by organizational rules, not by individuals[5][64][65]
Weber listed several preconditions for theemergence of bureaucracy, including an increase in the amount of space and population being administered, an increase in the complexity of the administrative tasks being carried out, and the existence of amonetary economy requiring a more efficient administrative system.[64] Development ofcommunication andtransportation technologies make more efficient administration possible, anddemocratization and rationalization of culture results in demands forequal treatment.[64]
Although he was not necessarily an admirer of bureaucracy, Weber saw bureaucratization as the most efficient and rational way of organizing human activity and therefore as the key torational-legal authority, indispensable to the modern world.[66] Furthermore, he saw it as the key process in the ongoingrationalization ofWestern society.[5][67] Weber also saw bureaucracy, however, as a threat to individual freedoms, and ongoing bureaucratization as leading to a "polar night of icy darkness", in which increasing rationalization of human life traps individuals in a soulless "iron cage" of bureaucratic, rule-based, rational control.[5][6] Weber's critical study of the bureaucratization of society became one of the most enduring parts of his work.[5][67] Many aspects of modern public administration are based on his work, and a classic, hierarchically organizedcivil service of the Continental type is called a "Weberian civil service" or a "Weberian bureaucracy".[68] Social scientists debate whether Weberian bureaucracy contributes toeconomic growth.[69]
Political scientist Jan Vogler challenges Max Weber's characterization of modern bureaucracies.[70] Whereas Weber describes bureaucracies as entailing strict merit recruitment, clearly delineated career-paths for bureaucrats, the full separation of bureaucratic operations from politics, and mutually exclusive spheres of competence for government agencies, Vogler argues that the overwhelming majority of existing public administrative systems are not like this. Instead, modern bureaucracies require only "minimal competence" from candidates for bureaucratic offices, leaving space for biases in recruitment processes that give preferential treatment to members of specific social, economic, or ethnic groups, which are observed in many real-world bureaucratic systems. Bureaucracies are also not strictly separated from politics.
...is a part of political life only as the methods of the counting house are a part of the life of society; only as machinery is part of the manufactured product. But it is, at the same time, raised very far above the dull level of mere technical detail by the fact that through its greater principles it is directly connected with the lasting maxims of political wisdom, the permanent truths of political progress.
Wilson did not advocate a replacement of rule by the governed, he simply advised that, "Administrative questions are not political questions. Although politics sets the tasks for administration, it should not be suffered to manipulate its offices". This essay became a foundation for the study of public administration in America.[72]
In his 1944 workBureaucracy, the Austrian economistLudwig von Mises compared bureaucratic management to profit management. Profit management, he argued, is the most effective method of organization when the services rendered may be checked by economic calculation of profit and loss. When, however, the service in question cannot be subjected to economic calculation, bureaucratic management is necessary. He did not oppose universally bureaucratic management; on the contrary, he argued that bureaucracy is an indispensable method for social organization, for it is the only method by which the law can be made supreme, and is the protector of the individual against despotic arbitrariness. Using the example of the Catholic Church, he pointed out that bureaucracy is only appropriate for an organization whose code of conduct is not subject to change. He then went on to argue that complaints about bureaucratization usually refer not to the criticism of the bureaucratic methods themselves, but to "the intrusion of bureaucracy into all spheres of human life." Mises saw bureaucratic processes at work in both the private and public spheres; however, he believed that bureaucratization in the private sphere could only occur as a consequence of government interference. According to him, "What must be realized is only that the strait jacket of bureaucratic organization paralyzes the individual's initiative, while within the capitalist market society an innovator still has a chance to succeed. The former makes for stagnation and preservation of inveterate methods, the latter makes for progress and improvement."[12]
American sociologistRobert K. Merton expanded on Weber's theories of bureaucracy in his workSocial Theory and Social Structure, published in 1957. While Merton agreed with certain aspects of Weber's analysis, he also noted the dysfunctional aspects of bureaucracy, which he attributed to a "trained incapacity" resulting from "over conformity". He believed that bureaucrats are more likely to defend their own entrenched interests than to act to benefit the organization as a whole but that pride in their craft makes them resistant to changes in established routines. Merton stated that bureaucrats emphasize formality over interpersonal relationships, and have been trained to ignore the special circumstances of particular cases, causing them to come across as "arrogant" and "haughty".[13]
In his bookA General Theory of Bureaucracy, first published in 1976,Elliott Jaques describes the discovery of a universal and uniform underlying structure of managerial or work levels in the bureaucratic hierarchy for any type of employment systems.[73]
Jaques argues and presents evidence that for the bureaucracy to provide a valuable contribution to the open society some of the following conditions must be met:
The number of levels in the hierarchy of a bureaucracy must match the complexity level of the employment system for which the bureaucratic hierarchy is created. (Jaques identified a maximum of eight levels of complexity for bureaucratic hierarchies.)
Roles within a bureaucratic hierarchy differ in the level of work complexity.
The level of work complexity in the roles must be matched by the level of human capability of the role holders. (Jaques identified maximum of eight levels of human capability.)
The level of work complexity in any managerial role within a bureaucratic hierarchy must be one level higher than the level of work complexity of the subordinate roles.
Any managerial role in a bureaucratic hierarchy must have full managerial accountabilities and authorities (veto selection to the team, decide task types and specific task assignments, decide personal effectiveness and recognition, decide initiation of removal from the team within due process).
Lateral working accountabilities[clarification needed] and authorities must be defined for all the roles in the hierarchy (seven types of lateral working accountabilities and authorities: collateral, advisory, service-getting and -giving, coordinative, monitoring, auditing, prescribing).[74][75][76]
Although numerous ideals associated with democracy, such as equality, participation, and individuality, are in stark contrast to those associated with modern bureaucracy, specifically hierarchy, specialization, and impersonality, political theorists did not recognize bureaucracy as a threat to democracy. Yet, democratic theorists still have not developed an adequate response to the challenge[further explanation needed] posed by bureaucratic power within democratic governance.[79]
One approach to addressing this issue rejects the idea that bureaucracy has any role at all in a true democracy. Theorists who adopt this perspective typically understand that they must demonstrate that bureaucracy does not necessarily occur in every contemporary society; only in those they perceive to be non-democratic. Thus, 19th century British writers frequently referred to bureaucracy as the "Continental nuisance," because their democracy was resistant to it, in their point of view.[79]
According to Marx and other socialist thinkers, the most advanced bureaucracies were those in France and Germany. However, they argued that bureaucracy was a symptom of the bourgeois state and would vanish along with capitalism, which gave rise to the bourgeois state. Though clearly not the democracies Marx had in mind, socialist societies ended up being more bureaucratic than the governments they replaced. Similarly, after capitalist economies developed the administrative systems required to support their extensive welfare states, the idea that bureaucracy exclusively exists in socialist governments could scarcely be maintained.[79]
^Weber, Max "Bureaucracy" in Weber's Rationalism and Modern Society, translated and edited by Tony Waters and Dagmar Waters, Palgrave-Macmillan 2015. p. 114
^Wirl, Franz (July 1998). "Socio-economic typologies of bureaucratic corruption and implications".Journal of Evolutionary Economics.8 (2). Springer-Verlag:199–220.doi:10.1007/s001910050062.S2CID154833892.
^BARNETT, Michael; FINNEMORE, Marftha (2004).Rules for the World: International Organizations in Global Politics. Cornell University Press. pp. 17–18.ISBN978-0-8014-4090-8.JSTOR10.7591/j.ctt7z7mx.
^Compare:Laurie E. Pearce (1995)."The Scribes and Scholars of Ancient Mesopotamia". In Jack M. Sasson (ed.).Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Macmillan Library Reference. pp. 2265–2278. Retrieved12 March 2014.Palace scribes recorded the activities of kings and the affairs of kingdoms in ancient Mesopotamia. Scribes served a variety of administrative functions, including arrangement and storage of texts [...], collection of taxes and supervision of workers, and supervision of public buildings such as granaries. [...] Scribes associated with the temple were not officiants in the temple cult. They functioned largely in administrative and bureaucratic roles. They received incoming staples for the temple, including commodities such as grain, fish, wool, and silver. They traveled to various cities to fulfill official duties, such as the purchase of grain for the temple complex.
^Ronald J. Williams (1972). "Scribal Training in Ancient Egypt".Journal of the American Oriental Society.92 (2):214–221.doi:10.2307/600648.JSTOR600648.
^World and Its Peoples: Eastern and Southern Asia, p. 36
^Riegel, Jeffrey (3 July 2002)."Confucius". In Edward N. Zalta (ed.).The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2012 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
^McKnight, Brian E. (1983).Village and Bureaucracy in Southern Sung China. University of Chicago Press. p. 1.ISBN978-0-226-56060-1. Retrieved7 February 2013.the government of imperial China still seems in many ways curiously modern and familiar. Bureaucratically organized, and dominated by a graded civil service led by men selected through competitive examinations, it was both a model for a precursor of the complex administrations of our modern world.
^Lord, Carnes (2012).Proconsuls: Delegated Political-Military Leadership from Rome to America Today. Cambridge university press.ISBN978-0-521-25469-4.
^As taken from theLaterculus Veronensis orVerona List, reproduced in Barnes,New Empire, chs. 12–13 (with corrections in T.D. Barnes, "Emperors, panegyrics, prefects, provinces and palaces (284–317)",Journal of Roman Archaeology 9 (1996): pp. 539–542). See also: Barnes,Constantine and Eusebius, 9; Cascio, "The New State of Diocletian and Constantine" (CAH), 179; Rees,Diocletian and the Tetrarchy, pp. 24–27.
^Harper, Douglas."Byzantine".Online Etymology Dictionary.: "pertaining to Byzantium (q.v., original name of Constantinople, modern Istanbul), 1770, from Late Latin Byzantinus; originally used of the style of art and architecture developed there 4c.–5c. C.E.; later in reference to the complex, devious, and intriguing character of the royal court of Constantinople (1937)."
^Lane, George (2016). "Turkoman confederations, the (Aqqoyunlu and Qaraqoyunlu)". In Dalziel, N.; MacKenzie, J.M. (eds.).The Encyclopedia of Empire. pp. 1–5.doi:10.1002/9781118455074.wbeoe193.ISBN978-1118455074.
^Walker, David (9 July 2003)."Fair game".The Guardian. London. Retrieved9 July 2003.
^Joseph Richmond Levenson (1964).Confucian China and Its Modern Fate, Volume 1 (revised ed.). University of California Press. pp. 17–18.
^Fry, Geoffrey Kingdon (1969).Statesmen in Disguise: The Changing Role of the Administrative Class of the British Home Civil Service 1853–1965. Palgrave Macmillan UK. pp. 95–96.ISBN978-1-349-00034-0.
^Mark W. Huddleston; William W. Boyer (1996).The Higher Civil Service in the United States: Quest for Reform. University of Pittsburgh Pre. p. 15.ISBN0822974738.
^Ronald Reagan (27 October 1964).A Time For Choosing (Speech).Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. Archived fromthe original on 14 January 2016. Retrieved13 March 2014.
^"Bureaucracy" from Weber's Rationalism and Modern Society: New Translations on Politics, Bureaucracy, and Social Stratification. Chapter 6 Edited and Translated by Tony Waters and Dagmar Waters. Palgrave MacMillan 2015, pp. 73–128ISBN978-1137365866
^Weber, 2015, pp. 73–127 in Weber's Rationalism and Modern Society, edited and translated by Tony Waters and Dagmar Waters, New York: Palgrave MacMillan
^Weber, Max (8 April 2015). "'The Nature, Conditions, and Development of Bureaucratic Herrschaft' by Max Weber". In Waters, Tony; Waters, Dagmar (eds.).Weber's Rationalism and Modern Society: New Translations on Politics, Bureaucracy, and Social Stratification. Translated by Elbers, Benjamin; Waters, Tony; Waters, Dagmar. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 76.ISBN9781137365866. Retrieved18 August 2024.1. A rigid division of labor is in place for the purpose of performing regular daily tasks as official duties in the functioning of the bureaucratically governed system. 2. In order to fulfill these duties the necessary chains of command are firmly established and divided up [among theBeamte], and their capacity to coerce (physical, sacred, or other) is firmly restricted by regulation. 3. Regular and continuous fulfillment of these assigned duties, and the execution of respective rights is systematically secured by hiring people with certified qualifications.
These three aspects constitute the essence of bureaucratic administration of aBehoerde in the public sector.
^Constructing the infrastructure for the knowledge economy : methods and tools, theory and structure. Linger, Henry. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. 2004. p. 104.ISBN978-0306485541.OCLC55877281.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
^abc"Bureaucracy and Democracy."Restoring Responsibility: Ethics in Government, Business, and Healthcare, by Dennis F. Thompson, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004, pp. 50–70.ISBN9780511617423
Cheng, Tun-Jen, Stephan Haggard, and David Kang. "Institutions and growth in Korea and Taiwan: the bureaucracy". inEast Asian Development: New Perspectives (Routledge, 2020) pp. 87–111.online
Cornell, Agnes, Carl Henrik Knutsen, and Jan Teorell. "Bureaucracy and Growth".Comparative Political Studies 53.14 (2020): 2246–2282.online
Crooks, Peter, and Timothy H. Parsons, eds.Empires and bureaucracy in world history: from late antiquity to the twentieth century (Cambridge University Press, 2016)online.
Schwarz, Bill. (1996).The expansion of England: race, ethnicity and cultural history. Psychology Pres;ISBN0-415-06025-7.
Watson, Tony J. (1980).Sociology, Work and Industry. Routledge.ISBN978-0-415-32165-5. On Weber
Weber, Max. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Translated by A.M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons. London: Collier Macmillan Publishers, 1947.
Weber, Max, "Bureaucracy" inWeber, Max. Weber's Rationalism and Modern Society: New translations on Politics, Bureaucracy, and Social Stratification. Edited and Translated by Tony Waters and Dagmar Waters, 2015.ISBN1137373539.English translation of "Bureaucracy" by Max Weber.
