W3

6 The Executive Branch © Andrew Gombert/epa/Corbis Learning Objectives By the end of this chapter, you should be able to• Describe the history and evolution of the federal bureaucracy.

• Analyze the differences between political and civil service administration.

• Describe the rise of the civil service system.

• Describe the essential functions of bureaucracy.

• Analyze differences between various types of agencies and departments within the bureaucracy.

• Describe how the political branches of government attempt to control the bureaucracy and ensure accountability.

• Evaluate the relationship among bureaucracy, Congress, and interest groups.

• Analyze the relationship between the nature and structure of American bureaucracy and Ameri - can political culture. fin82797_06_c06_133-160.indd 133 3/24/16 1:47 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 6.1 Components of the Federal Bureaucracy Upon taking office in January 2009, President Obama appointed several “czars,” White House counselors tasked with particular policy responsibilities, to oversee several policy areas. Crit- ics charged that the president was attempting to circumvent the bureaucratic process by run- ning things from the White House, rather than through the traditional executive branch departments. Critics also charged that by appointing czars who would work in the White House, rather than as assistant secretaries in the various departments, the president was avoiding the appointment process, which requires Senate confirmation. President Obama’s actions were viewed as an attempt to avoid legislative oversight, as these czars could not eas - ily be summoned to testify before Congress, nor could the products of their work be subjected to the Freedom of Information Act.

The roots of the czar concept lie in the 1939 Brownlow Commit- tee report, which brought about a reorganization of the executive branch that included the creation of the Executive Office of the Presi- dent (EOP), which led to a greater concentration of policymaking and oversight of agencies and White House departments.

Presidents with active policy agen- das often believe they can achieve better results if they do not have to rely on a large federal bureaucracy.

Although the president is both chief executive and chief operating offi- cer of the executive branch, the fed - eral government is a vast organiza- tion of several million employees, many of whom are protected by certain rules. A president can control his or her advisors in the White House because they serve at his or her pleasure, but he or she has no such author- ity over the bureaucracy. While the president can remove department and agency appointees, there are often political consequences to doing so. To be successful with Congress, presidents need the bureaucracy to implement their policy agendas.

In this chapter, we look at the bureaucracy. We examine the concept of a bureaucracy, how it developed in the United States, what it does, and how it is held accountable to the public.

6.1 Components of the Federal Bureaucracy The federal bureaucracy is the structure of administrative agencies and departments in the executive branch that is responsible for delivering public goods and services. For instance, the Social Security Administration delivers retirement funds to older adults. The bureaucracy is also responsible for implementing laws. While Congress and the president establish intent to do something by enacting legislation, the bureaucracy must make it happen. As an example, both houses of Congress passed the Affordable Care Act in 2010, and the president enacted Associated Press President Obama appointed Carol Browner his energy czar in October 2009. The office was abolished in 2011.

Presidents appoint czars for the sake of having more policy control concentrated in the White House. fin82797_06_c06_133-160.indd 134 3/24/16 1:47 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 6.1 Components of the Federal Bureaucracy it into law by signing the legislation. Yet the responsibility for implementing the law belongs to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), an executive branch Cabinet-level department through the delegation of authority, which was briefly discussed in Chapter 4.

Delegation of authority occurs when Congress grants authority to an executive branch depart- ment or agency for a specific task. (Authority for this particular law is also delegated to state governments, as they are responsible for implementing various features of the law.) The fed - eral bureaucracy is the part of the government responsible for implementing laws passed by the president and Congress, and, as appropriate, executive orders signed by the president and case law as determined by Supreme Court decisions. The nature and magnitude of the execu - tive branch’s implementation authority has resulted in a large and complex bureaucracy that includes Cabinet-level departments (discussed in Chapter 5) and several other agencies and offices responsible for implementing the law. The work of the federal government must be well organized in order to ensure that the will of the people, as reflected by congressional, presidential, and judicial actions, is carried out. Yet the magnitude of the work warrants a complex network of offices and agencies to fulfill their responsibilities.

Defining Bureaucracy The term bureaucracy comes from the French term bureau, meaning department. Today we use the term to mean the breaking down of administration into departments that have a spe - cific purpose. The federal bureaucracy is structured to carry out the law in a politically neu- tral fashion. A large number of government employees function outside the political realm and are not hired or fired based on election results. The purpose of the bureaucracy is to establish an administrative framework to implement the decisions made through the political process.

Successful bureaucracies are often organized accord - ing to principles first articulated by sociologist Max Weber. Weber (1947) suggested that a bureaucracy was the highest form of efficient administrative struc- ture in that it was organized to achieve a set of objec - tives at the least cost. The characteristics that Weber associated with bureaucracy are that it is based on principles of full and official jurisdictional areas and a division of labor. Bureaucracies are also ordered by rules, laws, or administrative regulation, which ensure that it will not operate in an arbitrary manner. The regular activities of the bureaucracy are distributed in the form of official duties, while the bureaucracy has the authority to give commands based on rules. Addi - tionally, a bureaucracy has provisions for the regular and continuous fulfillment of officials’ stated duties, and only those possessing generally regulated qualifi- cations are to be employed.

These principles are found in the modern Ameri - can bureaucracy, especially in the requirement that executive branch functions are based on written Fine Art Images/SuperStock Sociologist Max Weber suggested that a bureaucracy is the highest form of efficiency. fin82797_06_c06_133-160.indd 135 3/24/16 1:47 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 6.1 Components of the Federal Bureaucracy documents. Positions are legally defined, officials normally hold a form of tenure, and the salaries are based on status, or some type of rank within the organization. The bureaucracy allows the executive branch to divide administrative responsibilities based on specialization, and it allows specialists in particular areas to perform their functions according to objective criteria. Thus, bureaucrats seek to accomplish objectives set forth in legislation enacted by political figures. It is not bureaucrats’ responsibility to get involved with questions of whether those objectives are necessarily good, as those are considerations for elected officials.

Political Appointments Versus Career Civil Service System The bureaucracy is made up of two distinct components: the political administration and the civil service system. The administration refers to the bureaucracy that supports the president. The civil service system refers to those federal employees who are profession - als hired on the basis of merit. Whereas the civil service system is viewed as the permanent government, the political administration is viewed as a temporary government, because it is mostly replaced when a new president takes office. Each president’s political administration is composed of his or her immediate White House staff, his or her Cabinet, and the political appointees who staff various agencies and departments. As an example, in the State Depart- ment, there is a secretary of state and several assistant secretaries. Each assistant secretary is responsible for a specific policy or programmatic area, such as the assistant secretary for European affairs and the assistant secretary for East Asia. Political appointees in the admin- istration also include the various ambassadors stationed abroad. Each embassy around the world has an ambassador and several counselors who are also political appointees. Below the political appointees are members of the civil service system, and in the case of the State Department, the civil servants are members of the Foreign Service corps.

The key differences between political appointees and civil servants are the method by which they obtain their jobs, the nature of their loyalties, and the tenure of their offices. Political appointees are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Their loyalty is to the president, who can have them removed from office. Civil servants are hired by the U.S.

Office of Personnel Management, and they are chosen on the basis of merit. Individuals going into the civil service often start out in entry-level positions and may work their way up the bureaucratic ladder to more senior-level management positions, which explains why, in part, these persons are often referred to as career civil servants.

Civil servants are supposed to be loyal to their agencies and dedicated to the neutral delivery of public goods and services. Civil servants are governed by the Hatch Act of 1939, which is a law prohibiting federal employees from participating in partisan political activity. The Hatch Act was an outgrowth of a long tradition of civil service reform. Named after Senator Carl Hatch of New Mexico, it was a specific response to allegations that employees of the Work Progress Administration, a New Deal program, were used by Democratic politicians in the 1938 congressional campaign. The Hatch Act specifically prohibits intimidation or bribery of voters and restricts political campaign activities by federal employees. Federal employees below the policymaking level are not permitted to have “any active part” in a political cam - paign and are prohibited from using any public funds for electoral purposes. Additionally, civil servants are prohibited from promising jobs, promotion, financial assistance, contracts, or any other benefit as a way to coerce campaign contributions or political support. In practi - cal terms, this means that a political administrator may attend a fundraiser for members of fin82797_06_c06_133-160.indd 136 3/24/16 1:47 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 6.2 The Rise of the Civil Service System the president’s political party, but a civil servant may not. While civil servants are permitted to vote, like any other citizen, they may not campaign for political candidates.

The Hatch Act also prohibits federal employees from being members of “any political organi- zation which advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government.” This has been interpreted to preclude membership in the Communist Party.

Politics Versus Public Administration The federal bureaucracy is structured on the principle that politics should not play a role in the execution of government functions. The reason for the separa- tion is to maintain accountability, transparency, and neutrality. In the 1880s, political scientist Woodrow Wilson, who would later become president, put forth the classical model of public administration. Propos- ing a strong executive who would also be accountable, Wilson argued that public administration should be separate from political and policy concerns. Rather, public administration should be concerned solely with the “detailed and systematic execution of pub - lic law” (Wilson, 1887). Law and policies are made by elected officials, who are held accountable by vot- ers at the ballot box. If the public is unhappy with the policy choices made by elected officials, it can always vote them out of office. The role of the bureaucracy is to implement those policies. Wilson specifically called for a set of principles to guide administrators in the efficient performance of their duties.

Consider for a moment members of Congress who need to raise money for their reelection.

It would not be out of the ordinary for wealthy contributors to have greater access to these elected officials and a greater chance of being listened to than would ordinary voters. But we would not want a civil service system to give preference to rich people or to Republicans over Democrats in the delivery of benefits such as Social Security payments. The point of the sepa - ration is to ensure that delivery of public goods and services will happen on an impartial and equal basis. Civil service, then, requires an intricate set of procedures and rules that must be followed so that the delivery of services will, in fact, be impartial and professional.

6.2 The Rise of the Civil Service System The modern civil service system is an outgrowth of the Progressive Era (1890s–1920s), when social and government reformers sought to deliver governmental services on the basis of merit. The idea of a neutral, nonpartisan, and impartial civil service system was revolution- ary. Prior to the civil service system, people obtained government employment through polit - ical connections, also known as the spoils system. Library of Congress Woodrow Wilson argued that admin- istration should be separate from political and policy concerns. fin82797_06_c06_133-160.indd 137 3/24/16 1:47 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 6.2 The Rise of the Civil Service System The Spoils System Under the spoils system, the political party that won office would be able to staff the govern- ment. Newly elected persons would replace those working for the government with new employees who were loyal to them. This was, quite literally, a system of “to the victor go the spoils.” This meant that no one could be assured of long-term government employment, and workers were subject to being fired when their patron either left office or was defeated in an election. Workers did not necessarily have to be qualified for their jobs; they only needed to be loyal to the person who hired them. It would not be uncommon, for instance, for a local postal worker to be replaced after a presidential election.

President Andrew Jackson first used the spoils system to reward people who voted for him. Following Jack - son’s inauguration as president in 1829, about 20% of the federal workforce, mostly in the Post Office, was replaced. Despite attempts by administration officials to justify personnel changes, it became evident that the sole criterion for employment was loyalty to Jackson.

Ironically, the spoils system reflected Jackson’s revolu - tionary democratic spirit. Government was supposed to belong to the people. By that standard, it should be staffed by ordinary citizens, not technical experts. But the problem with this system was uneven delivery of services. As an example, a mail carrier whose loyalty was to Jackson and his Democratic Party might be less inclined to deliver mail with the same frequency or care to those areas that supported Jackson’s oppo - nents. Subsequent presidents continued to use the spoils system to encourage people to vote for them.

The spoils system was problematic for various other reasons. One of the legacies of the American Revolution was a deep-seated distrust of centralized power, which meant that Americans had a very negative view of gov - ernment. For more than a century after the Constitu - tion was ratified, the most desirable government was the one that governed least. A government staffed by experts or elites might be unaccountable to the public. In Europe, it was considered a matter of prestige to be a civil servant. But in those European societies, one who served the public did not necessarily need to be accountable for the simple reason that civil servants had expertise while the public did not. Jacksonian democ - racy, by contrast, was built on the premise that the common man should govern. Moreover, at the federal level, there was not much for government workers to do. It was only as governmen - tal operations became more complex that there would be a greater need for professionalism.

The Good Government Reform Movement The Good Government Reform movement sprang from the Progressive Era of the late 19 th and early 20 th centuries. There were efforts at the national level to eliminate the spoils system and replace it with a professional civil service system as early as 1865. © Bettmann/Corbis This cartoon alludes to the fact that Andrew Jackson was closely associ- ated with the spoils system. He used it to reward people who voted for him. fin82797_06_c06_133-160.indd 138 3/24/16 1:47 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 6.2 The Rise of the Civil Service System The reforms that did lead to the modern administrative state actually began at the local level.

In cities such as New York around the turn of the 20 th century, local party leaders would typi- cally offer patronage to immigrants. They would go to the docks to greet new arrivals with offers of employment and assistance to find housing and other needs. Often, the party leader would own a construction company that held building contracts with the city.

Meanwhile, these party leaders controlled party nominations, and they could help guarantee that their people would be elected by delivering the support and votes of their immigrant employees. In exchange for jobs, these party leaders would request that employees support their candidates. Elected city leaders owed something to these party leaders who put them there, and they paid that debt with construction contracts.

The spoils system also allowed local party leaders to reward their loyal followers with jobs in the local bureaucracy. Irish immigrants and their descendants, for instance, staffed many police departments. As a result, many elites believed that they were being displaced. The only way they could see to reclaim what they considered to be their lost and rightful positions of employment was to choose employees based on merit. In other words, by changing the rules of the game, more educated elites could displace those whose only qualification was their loyalty. Reformers sought greater efficiency and equity in the delivery of local governmental services by pushing to require workers to take and pass qualifying exams.

At the federal level, the impetus for replacing the spoils system was the 1881 assassination of Presi - dent James Garfield, who was shot by a disgruntled campaign worker whose repeated requests for a job through the spoils system had been rejected. Garfield’s successor, Chester Arthur, had no interest in continuing with a system that he thought resulted in the death of his predecessor, so in 1883 Con - gress passed, and President Arthur signed, the Pendleton Civil Ser- vice Reform Act. Sponsored by Senator George Pendleton of Ohio, this act sought to do away with the spoils system by creating the United States Civil Service Com - mission to run the federal civil ser - vice. Under the new law, applicants for certain jobs would be required to take a civil service exam. Hiring would be based on qualifications and merit, and elected officials and political appointees would no longer be able to fire civil servants. This removed civil servants from the influences of political patronage and partisan behavior. © Bettmann/Corbis After President James Garfield was assassinated by a campaign worker seeking a federal job in exchange for his efforts to get Garfield elected, Garfield’s successor, President Chester Arthur, signed a law to eliminate the spoils system. fin82797_06_c06_133-160.indd 139 3/24/16 1:47 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 6.2 The Rise of the Civil Service System Efficiency A civil service system based on meritocracy was supposed to achieve efficiency in the delivery of public goods and services, and with the professionalization of the bureaucracy came the idea that government should be run according to scientific principles of management, which apply business techniques to the public sector and to administrative management. These principles refer to a division of labor and specialization, or the effort to identify the tasks nec- essary to accomplish an objective and the grouping and coordination of those tasks to maxi - mize organizational efficiency (see Figure 6.1 to see how this works in the U.S. government).

Frederick Winslow Taylor is often viewed as the father of scientific management. Taylor was concerned with how management could take otherwise lazy workers and use “carrots and sticks” to turn them into efficient and productive ones. If good management in private indus - try could achieve efficiency in the production and distribution of goods and services in the marketplace, then good management in government could achieve efficiency in the delivery of public goods and services.

Efficiency, in simple terms, means producing goods for less cost. Efficiency in public service delivery could be improved if those responsible for their delivery were not bogged down in politics. Efficiency could also be achieved if public goods were delivered evenly and impar - tially. Yet efficiency would be harder to measure in government than in private industry. As an example, if a major automobile manufacturer introduces a new car model, its cost effective - ness can be measured by tallying up the revenues earned through sales and comparing them with the costs of production. But there would be no way to measure the cost effectiveness of, for example, maintaining national parks. The value of people’s enjoyment of the beauty of national parks may be priceless. Even if there are revenues derived from entrance fees, they might not exceed the costs of maintaining the parks, which would be deemed inefficient in the business world.

A government bureaucracy cannot always apply marketplace efficiency to the public sector.

The role of the bureaucracy is to serve the public interest. Still, it is not uncommon to criticize the federal bureaucracy for being inefficient. Because civil servants are immune from poli - tics and almost impossible to fire, elected officials cannot easily control the workings of the government. Similarly, the political appointees who head agencies, unlike managers in the private sector, have no real power to remove workers perceived to be inefficient.

Meritocracy and the Division of Labor American bureaucracy is built on the twin concepts that individuals should be hired because of their abilities to perform certain tasks, and that the bureaucracy itself is organized accord - ing to function. In the State Department, for instance, there is a division for Economic, Energy, and Agricultural Affairs; a division for Political Affairs; and a division for Arms Control and International Security Affairs, just to name a few. The State Department performs many func - tions. If the same individuals had to perform them all, they would spread themselves thin across the department. Division of labor allows individuals to specialize and become expert in something specific, allowing for greater efficiency. Figure 6.1: The government of the United States The U.S. government is formally organized to achieve efficiency. Business techniques are applied in managing various departments.

From The United States Government Manual (p. 21), by R. A. Mosley & A. C. Thomas, 2009, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office fin82797_06_c06_133-160.indd 140 3/24/16 1:47 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 6.2 The Rise of the Civil Service System Efficiency A civil service system based on meritocracy was supposed to achieve efficiency in the delivery of public goods and services, and with the professionalization of the bureaucracy came the idea that government should be run according to scientific principles of management, which apply business techniques to the public sector and to administrative management. These principles refer to a division of labor and specialization, or the effort to identify the tasks nec- essary to accomplish an objective and the grouping and coordination of those tasks to maxi - mize organizational efficiency (see Figure 6.1 to see how this works in the U.S. government).

Frederick Winslow Taylor is often viewed as the father of scientific management. Taylor was concerned with how management could take otherwise lazy workers and use “carrots and sticks” to turn them into efficient and productive ones. If good management in private indus- try could achieve efficiency in the production and distribution of goods and services in the marketplace, then good management in government could achieve efficiency in the delivery of public goods and services.

Efficiency, in simple terms, means producing goods for less cost. Efficiency in public service delivery could be improved if those responsible for their delivery were not bogged down in politics. Efficiency could also be achieved if public goods were delivered evenly and impar - tially. Yet efficiency would be harder to measure in government than in private industry. As an example, if a major automobile manufacturer introduces a new car model, its cost effective - ness can be measured by tallying up the revenues earned through sales and comparing them with the costs of production. But there would be no way to measure the cost effectiveness of, for example, maintaining national parks. The value of people’s enjoyment of the beauty of national parks may be priceless. Even if there are revenues derived from entrance fees, they might not exceed the costs of maintaining the parks, which would be deemed inefficient in the business world.

A government bureaucracy cannot always apply marketplace efficiency to the public sector.

The role of the bureaucracy is to serve the public interest. Still, it is not uncommon to criticize the federal bureaucracy for being inefficient. Because civil servants are immune from poli - tics and almost impossible to fire, elected officials cannot easily control the workings of the government. Similarly, the political appointees who head agencies, unlike managers in the private sector, have no real power to remove workers perceived to be inefficient.

Meritocracy and the Division of Labor American bureaucracy is built on the twin concepts that individuals should be hired because of their abilities to perform certain tasks, and that the bureaucracy itself is organized accord - ing to function. In the State Department, for instance, there is a division for Economic, Energy, and Agricultural Affairs; a division for Political Affairs; and a division for Arms Control and International Security Affairs, just to name a few. The State Department performs many func - tions. If the same individuals had to perform them all, they would spread themselves thin across the department. Division of labor allows individuals to specialize and become expert in something specific, allowing for greater efficiency. Figure 6.1: The government of the United States The U.S. government is formally organized to achieve efficiency. Business techniques are applied in managing various departments.

From The United States Government Manual (p. 21), by R. A. Mosley & A. C. Thomas, 2009, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office fin82797_06_c06_133-160.indd 141 3/24/16 1:47 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 6.3 What Do Bureaucrats Do?

Along with this division of labor go two principles that underpin bureaucracy generally, and American bureaucracy in particular: chain of command and span of control. Chain of com - mand refers to the hierarchical nature of the bureaucracy. A department secretary oversees undersecretaries, who oversee assistant secretaries, who oversee division supervisors, who oversee assistant supervisors, who oversee mid-level managers, who oversee subordinates beneath them, and all the way down to the lowest level in the organization. The span of con- trol refers to authority that a particular supervisor might have over subordinates in several units. When the chain of command and span of control are put together, the structure of the bureaucracy resembles a pyramid with the head of a department at the top and line work- ers at the bottom. The line workers are those, like caseworkers in a welfare office or cus - tomer service staff in a Social Security office, who are essentially the public face of the federal bureaucracy for those who need their services.

6.3 What Do Bureaucrats Do? In simple terms, bureaucrats take orders from those above them and give orders to those below in order to administer programs and deliver public goods and services. In the spirit of separating public administration from politics, bureaucrats implement policies and adminis - ter programs created by elected public officials.

Implement Laws, Policies, and Programs The bureaucracy, as the organiza- tional form of the executive branch, “executes” laws and policies passed by the legislative branch. As such, much of the bureaucracy is devoted to regulating individual and group behavior. If Congress passes and the president signs a new tax on millionaires, the agency or depart- ment responsible for collecting those taxes is the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which is part of the U.S. Treasury Department. The IRS monitors individuals’ incomes and the taxes they pay through report- ing requirements. Because the IRS has the authority to enforce the existing federal tax code, individuals are required to file annual tax returns, and the IRS can audit those suspected of cheating. If individuals do not submit the taxes they owe at the end of the year, the IRS can collect them by putting a lien on an individual’s wages. It can also enforce collections by initiating judicial proceedings against those suspected of tax evasion. © Seth Perlman/AP/Corbis Internal Revenue Service (IRS) employees sift through tax returns at an IRS tax form processing center. As part of the bureaucracy of the executive branch, the IRS enforces policy that has been passed by Congress and signed by the president. fin82797_06_c06_133-160.indd 142 3/24/16 1:47 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 6.3 What Do Bureaucrats Do?

All these activities are examples of an agency implementing laws that Congress passed and that, by extension, reflect the will of the people. The bureaucracy also includes FBI agents who inves- tigate crimes and federal prosecutors who suspect criminals on behalf of the FBI, workers who deliver the mail, physicians in veterans hospitals, caseworkers who process applications for public assistance, analysts in the Department of Labor who report on monthly unemployment figures, and scientists in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) who look for cures for cancer or in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) who manage space exploration.

Make Laws Through Rule-Making In theory, the bureaucracy does not make laws, as only Congress has the authority to do so. In reality, though, the bureaucracy makes law through its rule-making function. Once Congress passes a law, the bureaucracy sets the rules for how that law will be implemented, in essence filling in the details. These rules are usually published in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and may also appear in the Federal Register. Published rules are considered by the courts to be as legally binding as statutory law—law made by Congress—provided that they are a reasonable interpretation of the underlying statute. The bureaucracy thus establishes a written record of what it does and makes it publicly available.

Adjudicate Decisions and Disputes The bureaucracy also exercises a degree of judicial authority through its administrative adju - dication function. When an agency writes rules for how people can receive benefits, it also establishes procedures for how benefits can be terminated. The Administrative Procedures Act of 1946 has adjudicatory requirements that apply when an agency’s statutes require that an order—not an agency rule—be issued. The order is “to be determined on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing.” The result is that such proceedings are to be conducted in a fashion similar to a court.

Proceedings are presided over by impartial administrative law judges who are appointed by the agency with the approval of the Office of Personnel Management. Administrative law pro- ceedings include oral hearings and cross-examination of witnesses and are fully recorded along with documentary evidence. An administrative law judge makes an “initial decision” that is final unless it is appealed to the head of the agency. An agency head can also make a decision after receiving a recommendation from the administrative law judge. Still, courts can review the decisions of agencies, but they are likely to overturn decisions only if they do not conform with the procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act and other statutes. Or they may overturn a decision if they find that an agency’s “action, findings, and conclusions” are not supported by substantial evidence.

The bureaucracy in effect acts like a court, and what occurs is an administrative hearing. Sup - pose, for example, that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) decides to ter - minate a recipient’s benefits because that person failed to abide by the rules. Suppose the specific rule required that the person report to a work site for a minimum of 20 hours a week, and he failed to do this. HHS, of course, justifies its actions by pointing to the rules in the Federal Register. Still, the recipient is a citizen and has rights, so he appeals the termination fin82797_06_c06_133-160.indd 143 3/24/16 1:47 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 6.4 Types of Bureaucratic Departments of benefits decision. He presents his case to a panel in HHS that will hear and adjudicate the appeal. The judicial power of the bureaucracy is referred to as agency adjudication, and it occurs when someone has violated agency rules. If the recipient who loses benefits is not satisfied with the result of the hearing, he can always appeal the results to an actual court.

6.4 Types of Bureaucratic Departments The federal bureaucracy is made up of several types of organizations, and the president, at least at the political level, makes different types of appointments to each organization. Most Americans are familiar with the traditional Cabinet departments such as Justice, Treasury, and State. But there are also independent agencies, independent regulatory commissions, and government corporations. Each of these types of organizations has layers of political appoin - tees and civil servants.

The Cabinet The 15 Cabinet departments, listed in Table 6.1, comprise about 60% of the federal workforce.

These departments generally fall into three categories, although some departments could be classified in more than one category. These categories include functional, clientele, and geo - graphic. Regardless of type, each Cabinet department is further divided into various smaller units, such as bureaus, divisions, or offices. Much of the work gets done in these smaller units.

Independent Agencies An independent agency is a federal body that is independent of both the president and Con - gress. Congress creates the agency and the president appoints people to it, but after that nei- ther Congress nor the president has much control. That is the idea: to have an agency that can oversee a specific policy or program function without being subject to political pressures. At the same time, independent agencies are subject to oversight, as they can be called to testify at congressional hearings.

The Federal Reserve Board, or “the Fed,” which regulates banks and the money sup - ply, is an example of an independent agency.

The president appoints a chair for a period of 4 years, and people who are known as “governors” (not actual elected state gov - ernors) for 14-year terms. Once they are in place, governors may be removed by the president for cause. Although Congress regularly calls the Fed chair to testify, it has no authority over the agency short of rewriting the legislation that created it in the first place. Associated Press/J. Scott Applewhite Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen was nomi- nated by President Obama in 2014 for a 4-year term. The Federal Reserve Board chair serves as part of the president’s administration but makes decisions independent of executive oversight. fin82797_06_c06_133-160.indd 144 3/24/16 1:47 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 6.4 Types of Bureaucratic Departments Table 6.1: Cabinet departments DepartmentFunctionDate of creation Department of State (DOS) Handles foreign policy and rep- resents the nation abroad1789 Department of the Treasury Manages taxes, revenue, and sometimes broader economic policy1789 Department of the Interior (DOI) Maintains national parks and other public lands (most of the nation’s parks are in the West)1849 Department of Agriculture (USDA) Serves the interests of farmers 1862 Department of Justice (DOJ) Enforces federal law and pros- ecutes criminal violations of it 1870 Department of Commerce Serves the interests of businesses1903 Department of Labor (DOL) Helps American workers by improving working condi- tions, addressing job training, minimum wage, employment discrimination, and unemploy- ment insurance 1913 Department of Defense (DOD) Coordinates the nation’s defense1947 (The Department of Defense was originally created as the Department of War in 1789 and renamed in 1947 as the Department of Defense.) Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Helps low-income individuals access free or low-cost health services and affordable housing1953 (The Department of Health and Human Services was origi - nally the Department of Health Education and Welfare. The Department of Education was created as a separate department in 1979.) Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Improves and develops the nation’s communities and enforces fair housing laws1965 Department of Transportation (DOT) Ensures a fast, safe, efficient, accessible, and convenient trans- portation system1966 Department of Energy (DOE) Advances the national energy security1977 Department of Education (ED) Promotes educational quality and equal access to education1979 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Administers benefit programs for veterans, their families, and their survivors1989 Data from “The Executive Branch,” by The White House, 2015( http://www.whitehouse.gov/our-government/executive-branch ). fin82797_06_c06_133-160.indd 145 3/24/16 1:47 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 6.4 Types of Bureaucratic Departments Independent Regulatory Commission An independent regulatory commission is like an independent agency with a narrow focus and specific function. Examples include the Securities and Exchange Commission, which regulates trading activity on Wall Street; the Federal Elections Commission, which regulates campaign and election activity; the Interstate Commerce Commission, which regulates the movement of goods across state lines; and the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates interstate and international radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable communica - tions as well as telephone companies, including wireless service providers.

If regulation were handled by Congress, it might not happen at all, and it certainly would not happen evenly. Likewise, if the Federal Election Commission were subject to traditional exec - utive branch control, it might hesitate to investigate illegal presidential campaign contribu - tions because the recipient of those contributions might well now be the president oversee- ing the commission. Immunity from political pressures and from arbitrary removal enables an independent regulatory commission to do its job.

Government Corporations A government corporation is a legal entity created to exercise some of the powers of the government. It is either wholly owned or partially owned by the government and is often structured as a nonprofit organization. However, it is not entirely part of the federal bureau - cracy. Government corporations are intended to serve a valued public purpose while main - taining a degree of independence. An example is the U.S. Postal Service (USPS), whose mis- sion appears below:

The Postal Service shall have as its basic function the obligation to provide postal services to bind the Nation together through the personal, educational, literary, and business correspondence of the people. It shall provide prompt, reliable, and efficient services to patrons in all areas and shall render postal services to all communities.

The USPS is required, by statute, to provide the same services to all Americans, such as deliv - ering first-class mail at the same price no matter where they live or the actual cost of deliver - ing that mail.

Types of Political Appointments Political appointments often fall into three general categories: specialists, careerists, and cli - entelists. The specialist appointee generally has specific expert knowledge that is critical to running a functional department. As an example, the State Department is functional, in that its specific purpose is foreign policy. However, a secretary of state and his or her assistant secretaries are likely to be foreign policy experts and are therefore examples of specialist appointments. fin82797_06_c06_133-160.indd 146 3/24/16 1:47 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 6.4 Types of Bureaucratic Departments Presidents do not always appoint specialists to top positions in the government. Presidents may appoint careerists, such as prominent political figures who have served in different presidential administrations in a variety of capacities. Careerists bring knowledge of how Washington works and how to work through the bureaucracy, and they often have connec- tions with members of Congress. Because the appointees are the ones who have to represent their agencies and departments before Congress, their congressional connections are criti - cal, especially when it comes to requests for funding. An example of a careerist is Norman Mineta, who served as member of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1975 to 1995, then secretary of commerce under President Bill Clinton and later secretary of transportation under President George W. Bush. Even though Mineta was a Democrat, President George W.

Bush understood the value of Mineta’s knowledge of Washington politics when he chose him to serve in his Cabinet.

Sometimes a president appoints a careerist because he or she would like to have a greater say in a par- ticular policy area. For instance, careerists are often appointed to be secretary of state by presidents who consider themselves suffi - ciently expert in foreign affairs. A non-expert at the State Department allows a president to run policy from the White House. This was true in the early years of the Nixon administration, when William P.

Rogers was secretary of state and Henry Kissinger was national secu- rity advisor. Foreign policy was gen - erally run from the White House, and the secretary of state was little more than a figurehead. Later, when Kissinger became secretary of state in 1973, foreign policy was once again made in the State Department. Although the term was not used then, Kissinger was in many respects Nixon’s foreign policy czar.

The clientelist is the third type of appointment that presidents make, usually to agencies or departments that serve a specific clientele. A clientelist is often appointed because he or she is believed to satisfy a particular constituency and can bring that constituency’s support back to the president. An example of this is the secretary of agriculture. Because the Department of Agriculture primarily serves the interests of farmers, it makes sense to appoint an agriculture secretary from those states that form the farm bloc. Coming from that area, he or she will understand what farmers want and may be able to deliver the farmers’ support in the next election. © Bettmann/Corbis An example of a careerist appointment would be when President Richard Nixon (center) had William P. Rogers (left) serve as secretary of state but appointed Henry Kissinger (right) as national security advisor. His goal was to run foreign policy from the White House, not the State Department. fin82797_06_c06_133-160.indd 147 3/24/16 1:47 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 6.5 Who Controls the Bureaucracy?

6.5 Who Controls the Bureaucracy? The federal bureaucracy is often referred to as the “fourth branch of government” because it is almost like a branch unto itself. Most workers in the bureaucracy are civil servants, so it is very difficult for political leaders to control what they do. In the private sector, a worker who does not do what the president of his or her company wants can be fired. That is not the case with the civil service system, where the president or even his or her political appointees can- not easily remove a career civil servant. Civil service workers are protected by civil service rules, and to remove a civil service employee, even for cause, requires several steps in a pro- tracted process that guarantees the employee’s rights to appeal.

Unlike in the spoils system, a new Republican president cannot order the termination of all employees in the Department of Health and Human Services because the president thinks they might have voted for the Democratic opponent in the last election. Civil servants can be fired for failure to perform their duties, but the procedures to do so are complex. Employees facing termination may appeal to the Civil Service Commission.

Still, there are ways to control the bureaucracy, or at least make it more accountable. Fore - most among these are the president’s ability to control budgets for specific agencies, and Congress’s ability to hold legislative oversight hearings. Even though it is immune from tradi - tional political pressure, at the end of the day the bureaucracy, like any other institution, still needs to maintain a measure of support from the public.

Presidential Control Political scientist Francis Rourke (1984) has observed that a key theme in American politics over the years has been the struggle for control over national policy between the White House and the bureaucratic organizations. Rourke has suggested that a president has three courses of action. First, the president can fill the top echelon of executive organizations with political appointees who share his or her values and hope that they will protect his or her interests.

Second, the president can assign members of the White House staff to monitor the work of executive agencies. Third, the president can create structures in the White House that will take the lead in policy areas of importance to him or her. The use of White House czars reflects this third course. In the past, however, presidents took one or more of these courses of action in response to deep dissatisfaction with bureaucratic performance.

As mentioned in the opening vignette, President Obama began his presidency by appointing several czars, which signaled that he would prefer that policy direction come from him and the White House. President Nixon, in particular, used this approach when he made all foreign policy through Henry Kissinger and the National Security Council rather than William P. Rog - ers and the State Department.

The president can also control the bureaucracy through the budgeting process. Although Congress technically appropriates money and therefore must approve of budgets, as we dis - cussed in Chapter 2, the president prepares the budgets and submits them to Congress. fin82797_06_c06_133-160.indd 148 3/24/16 1:47 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 6.5 Who Controls the Bureaucracy?

There are three basic budgeting techniques: line-item budgeting, planning program budget - ing , and zero-base budgeting . With line-item budgeting, money is appropriated for specific items such as equipment, personnel, and programs. A department that received $40 billion last year can usually expect the same this year and perhaps 4% more. If there are to be budget cuts, its budget will not be cut very much—maybe only by 2–3%. This is also known as incre- mentalism , which is the idea that everything is completed in small steps. The point of line- item budgeting is that it is predictable, and there is very little concern that a department or agency will be completely defunded. However, without such danger, the president does not enjoy the same level of control that he or she might were he or she able to eliminate depart- ments or agencies. Moreover, a bureaucracy that can expect a consistent budget has very little reason to explain itself and justify how it is spending public monies.

A president might be able to achieve accountability by forcing agencies and departments to jus- tify their expenditures based on the programs that they adminis - ter. Planning program budget- ing (PPB) is a technique whereby a budget is organized around pro - grams rather than items. The idea was first introduced during Presi - dent Kennedy’s administration by Defense Secretary Robert McNa- mara. A budget would be organized around specific programs like the North Pacific Fleet, Aircraft Carrier groups, and Amphibious Landings.

The Defense Department would undertake a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether benefits of a particular program justified its costs. This question, of course, is a political one, as benefits are deter- mined according to whose inter - ests are being served, or in terms of who is getting what, when, and how. The implication, however, is that if the benefits cannot be shown to justify the costs, the entire program can be cut. Politically, this is often difficult because every program has its own base of support. But it does force the bureaucracy to be accountable to the political leadership in the executive branch.

A third type of budgeting technique is known as zero-base budgeting (ZBB) , which was introduced during the Carter administration. The basic idea is that departments and agen - cies should not assume that, just because they had a budget the previous year, they are nec - essarily entitled to one now. On the contrary, they should assume that they have no budget and that they are preparing one from scratch. They are in effect being asked to explain to the political leaders what it is they do, why it is essential that they continue doing it, and just how Associated Press/J. Scott Applewhite Republican Paul Ryan, House Budget Committee chair, references President Obama’s 2014 fiscal budget pro- posal book during a hearing on the Health and Human Services budget. The president can often use the bud- get to exert a degree of executive control over bureau- cratic agencies. Representative Ryan has since become speaker of the House of Representatives. fin82797_06_c06_133-160.indd 149 3/24/16 1:47 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 6.5 Who Controls the Bureaucracy?

any appropriation of public monies will be spent. In practice, those preparing budgets begin from a certain level of spending, perhaps around 80% of their previous budget. They then put together “decision packages” consisting of different ways that the level of services could be increased and then rank them. This way, political appointees can establish priorities for spending increases.

As with the PPB, ZBB requires bureaucrats to be accountable by engaging in public justifica- tion. ZBB similarly assumes that if the justification is not adequate, the agency or department can be eliminated. Again, it would be politically difficult to eliminate a whole unit because agencies and departments typically have supporters in Congress as well as among a variety of interest groups. Still, by forcing bureaucrats to jump through the hoops associated with both ZBB and PPB, the president is able to exert some control. At the very least, the president can ensure that an agency or department perceived to be out of control receives less money.

Management by Objective Management by objective is the idea that the president and his or her political appointees can establish objectives for each program as well as a set of measures to determine whether those objectives have been met. Agency heads establish a set of quantified objectives to be achieved in the coming year and then break down each objective into quarterly targets. This process is repeated down the chain of command. The goal is to achieve greater efficiency through clearly stated objectives that are easily quantified. If everybody is forced to demonstrate that objectives are being achieved, and how they are being achieved, there will be greater account - ability. Implicit in all this is the threat that if objectives are not achieved, major changes can be made, including overhaul of departments, elimination of programs, and termination of personnel.

Congressional Control As we mentioned in Chapter 4, Congress holds the executive branch accountable to the public through legislative oversight hearings. The bureaucracy cannot function if Congress does not appropriate money to it. Thus, controlling the bureaucracy through legislative oversight is a matter of bringing Congress’s power of the purse to bear. Typically, it is the political appoin- tees who actually testify before Congress about what their departments are doing, how they are administering specific programs, and how public money is being spent. But it is the career bureaucrat who is often required to prepare the actual testimony. Agencies and departments are also required to submit reports to Congress on a periodic basis, and civil service workers write these reports. In an extreme type of control of this civil service workforce, on the basis of hearings, Congress can rewrite legislation to change the bounds of an agency’s jurisdiction and authority. It can also appropriate less money to an agency. Congress does not need the president to request less money; it can do this on its own. fin82797_06_c06_133-160.indd 150 3/24/16 1:47 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 6.6 Bureaucracy, Congress, and Interest Groups Judicial Control Bureaucracies that implement policies and programs are an extension of the president exe- cuting the laws of the land. They are the administrative machinery of the executive branch.

But the bureaucracy still has to operate within the bounds of the law. Thus, court rulings can affect the scope of administrative authority. A court can either expand bureaucratic author- ity or limit it. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), for instance, routinely enforces tax collec- tion through random audits of Americans. If the IRS intends to audit someone, that person is forced to comply, though he or she can bring an accountant or lawyer along to ensure due process. Suppose that someone believed that an audit was a violation of his or her privacy.

This person could file suit in court in an attempt to force the IRS to stop random audits. Were a court to order that future audits needed a prior court order so as not to invade privacy, it would, in effect, be narrowing the scope of the IRS’s authority.

6.6 Bureaucracy, Congress, and Interest Groups The relationship between Congress and the bureaucracy is not always characterized by Con - gress holding the executive branch accountable. There are also times when Congress and the bureaucracy work together to satisfy mutual interests. Additionally, there are instances when agencies appear to serve interest groups to the exclusion of the public interest. Some of these relationships are known as the iron triangle of representation, and others are referred to as bureaucratic capture.

Iron Triangles An iron triangle is a relationship among a committee in Congress, an interest group, and an administrative department or agency whereby each attempts to satisfy the others for mutual gain (see Figure 6.2). For example, interest groups lobby members of Congress (that is, they try to influence them) for programs or projects that will benefit them. Congressional mem - bers in turn lobby administrative agencies for contracts to run these programs. The bureau - cracy lobbies Congress for funds for programs so that it in turn can award contracts. Members of the bureaucracy also lobby for budgets, because the size of a budget is often seen as a measure of prestige and power. Members of Congress may lobby the administrative agency to award a contract to a particular interest group in the hopes that they will be repaid with cam- paign contributions. Administrative agencies also seek to satisfy interest groups by awarding contracts to them because some bureaucrats might want to trade government jobs for more lucrative private ones. They may also seek to satisfy interests in the hopes that lobbying Con - gress will result in a greater appropriation for those groups. fin82797_06_c06_133-160.indd 151 3/24/16 1:47 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 6.6 Bureaucracy, Congress, and Interest Groups By and large, iron triangles are considered to be impenetrable. Although each point of the tri- angle does allow for various interests to gain access, the close relationships among the three sides make it extremely difficult to introduce new and innovative policies. For example, an idealistic president may want to cut the defense budget to have serious arms control, but he or she will find it extremely difficult to do so. Still, iron triangles allow for individual concerns to be represented through the interest groups representing those concerns as part of the iron triangle relationship.

Bureaucratic Capture When an agency is in the service of its clientele and the interests of the clientele come before the interests of the public, it is said to have succumbed to bureaucratic capture. For instance, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulates the airline industry with the goal of keep - ing the flying public safe. Yet in practice the agency is often viewed as a traditional clientele agency whose first mission is to serve the interests of those it is supposed to regulate. If, for instance, it eases maintenance requirements on aircraft and an unintended consequence is a plane crash, critics will assume that those requirements were eased to allow the airlines to save money and boost profits. If the FAA had demanded harsher maintenance requirements, it would have been serving the public interest. Because instead it gave in to the demands of the airlines, it is an example of bureaucratic capture.

Figure 6.2: The iron triangle Iron triangles represent the relationships among congressional committees, interest groups, and the bureaucracy.

From Ubernetizen. fin82797_06_c06_133-160.indd 152 3/24/16 1:47 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 6.6 Bureaucracy, Congress, and Interest Groups An agency may be captured as a function of an iron triangle. In these cases, not only does it specifically serve the interests of its clientele, but it does so with the express blessing of the congressional com- mittee that is supposed to oversee it. When an agency is captured, there is, in effect, no accountabil- ity, and it is that much harder for politicians to control it. It generally takes a severe crisis or multiple cri - ses, such as several plane crashes where hundreds of lives are lost, to break a bureaucratic capture.

Remedies Political scientist Theodore Lowi (2009) has contended that Con - gress is responsible for the cre - ation of iron triangles and the bureaucratic capture that results. Because Congress delegates authority to the bureaucracy to accomplish its objectives, interest groups will inevitably arise to get a piece of the action. The solution might be to withdraw the delegation of authority.

However, this does not seem feasible because as citizens expect more of their government, they demand more of Congress, whose members must respond by creating new programs.

Congress then has to delegate authority so that the new programs are implemented, and this in turn empowers the bureaucracy. As a consequence, bureaucracy becomes a symbol of big government, which is counter to the culture of limited government upon which the country was founded.

One remedy to the problem of a cumbersome bureaucracy might be a move toward limited government, but it is not clear whether limited government is realistic in a complex society.

Lowi has suggested the remedy of returning to “juridicial democracy,” which would amount to limiting federal action “to those practices for which it is possible to develop a clear and authoritative rule of law, enacted democratically and implemented absolutely” (2009). In other words, federal action needs to be subject to popular control, as exercised through the representative Congress. Lowi has even suggested that the Supreme Court be asked to declare unconstitutional any delegation of power to an administrative agency that is not accompanied by clear standards of implementation. In other words, the traditional disdain for big govern - ment was really a concern that the executive would become all powerful and act arbitrarily.

A society as complex as the 21 st century United States requires a greater executive presence, which in turn involves greater bureaucracy. But there still need to be checks on the powers of the executive, and the concept of juridical democracy is offered as one mechanism for ensur - ing that the democracy does not act arbitrarily. Recall from Chapter 1 that the desire to check the executive was a key motive for the colonists to declare independence from the British. Associated Press/The Oklahoman/Michael Downes Officials from the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) investigate a plane crash. The FAA is a good example of bureaucratic capture because it is supposed to be serving the public interest, but too often it gives in to the demands of the airlines and other special interest groups. fin82797_06_c06_133-160.indd 153 3/24/16 1:47 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 6.7 Bureaucracy in American Political Culture 6.7 Bureaucracy in American Political Culture The revolutionary spirit from which the American nation was born has generally contrib- uted to a negative perception of bureaucracy. Government institutions have not always been viewed in the most positive terms, and the bureaucracy has often been seen as a concrete manifestation of government power.

Bureaucracy as Active Government The United States has long had a tradition of opposing active government that has added to the ambivalence toward administrative agencies. One of the core American values is individ- ual liberty, and because government institutions were designed to protect individual liberty through the separation of powers, there has long been a belief that liberty and strong central governmental authority cannot coexist. The Framers actually admonished that we should be jealous of government power, as such power would represent a threat to liberty. The growth of American bureaucracy, however, coincides with the transformation from passive to active government, and with the evolution from dual federalism to cooperative and then creative federalism, as discussed in Chapter 3. This growth has been contrary to the values of limited government.

It is not just that Americans are ambivalent about administrative agencies because they are con - cerned about their liberty, however.

Opposition to active government in the United States has also made Americans ambivalent out of the belief that government only fouls things up. Government should be limited in its functions, the thinking goes, because individuals are capa - ble of doing things better and more efficiently on their own.

Much of the opposition to health care reform had to do with concern that if bureaucrats decided who gets what type of treatment, individual liberty would be infringed upon, and that a system that was perceived to run well in the private sector would be destroyed by government control. If the costs of health care are too high, the argument goes, the answer is not government bureaucracy, but more competition in the marketplace.

Some of these views are derived from a conviction that markets are more efficient. But some of these views may also be derived from a historical distrust of government. Concerns about active government in the United States have a much longer history than the Progressive tra - dition, from which the more modern view of government as a force for good descends. To © Brooks Kraft/Corbis A tradition that opposes active government contrib- utes to the belief among many Americans that govern- ment control generally leads to more problems than solutions. fin82797_06_c06_133-160.indd 154 3/24/16 1:47 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Section 6.7 Bureaucracy in American Political Culture a certain extent, modern administrative theory is built on the reality that markets do not always work and, left to their own, unregulated, devices, free markets can result in unemploy- ment, poverty, great disparities in wealth and income, products that only wealthy people can buy, and in general much human suffering and misery. The modern administrative state exists to compensate for many of these market failures. Free markets, in other words, require strong mediating bureaucratic structures if they are to succeed for everyone.

Arguments for government regulation stem from the observation that government is not the only source of centralized power about which citizens should be jealous. Rather, corporations are also sources of strong centralized power with the potential to limit our freedom. Accord- ing to this argument, Americans need to be jealous of both corporate and government power.

Government, then, has a role to play in making a more fair and equitable society.

Bureaucracy as Red Tape The idea that bureaucracy is full of red tape implies that government cannot deliver goods and services efficiently. Consider two images: one is a McDonald’s restaurant and the other is the U.S. Post Office. In McDonald’s, the goal is to sell as much fast food as quickly as possible.

Fast food restaurants appeal to customers who do not want to take the time for a leisurely meal, but instead want speed at low prices. If customers are kept waiting in long lines for long periods of time, they will go elsewhere. Employees are expected to serve customers efficiently, or they will lose their jobs. McDonald’s follows the rule of competition, and when there is competition, there is greater efficiency.

Customers at a typical post office, by contrast, may encounter long lines and be frustrated with the level of service. Unlike employees at McDonald’s, who may be termi- nated without cause, postal work - ers are protected by civil service rules. This runs contrary to Taylor’s principles of scientific manage- ment, which hold that efficiency will be accomplished only if man - agement can control the workforce through carrots and sticks. A civil service system removes that con - trol. Because the Post Office has a virtual monopoly on mail service, customers cannot readily go else- where when they find themselves frustrated with their mail service. Unlike McDonald’s, which has the flexibility to locate in areas that will bring high customer volume, the USPS has no choice as to who it serves or where its customers live. The cost of sending a 1-oz. letter is the same whether that letter is delivered across town or across time zones. The USPS must also deliver the mail 6 days a week. Abiding by these federal rules may contribute to the per- ception that the USPS is not performing in a fiscally responsible manner. Blend Images/SuperStock Government bureaucracy is intended to be slow and cumbersome so that individual liberty is protected. fin82797_06_c06_133-160.indd 155 3/24/16 1:47 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Summary and Resources When the Post Office is compared to the McDonald’s restaurant, it looks inefficient. But the image of the bureaucracy as red tape extends beyond inefficiency at the level of line workers.

It also implies that there are too many layers of decision making, which slow things down even further. The American cultural traditions of liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the marketplace have fueled this ambivalence toward administrative agencies.

Bureaucracy as Accountability Political scientist James Q. Wilson (1991) has argued that the red tape and inefficiency of the bureaucracy help ensure accountability. Like the American government, the bureaucracy is intended to function slowly and in a cumbersome manner in order to be accountable.

The effect is that the bureaucracy protects individual liberty. If bureaucrats have to wade through several layers of red tape, they are forced to explain and justify their actions. This is the meaning of governing by written rules. A slow and tedious process also helps ensure that the actions that are taken are correct. The layers reinforce an administrative command, with authority passing through stages that provide accountability and thus protect liberty.

Summary and Resources Chapter Summary The American bureaucracy is composed of the agencies and departments of the executive branch of government. The Framers had not originally addressed the role of the bureaucracy because they assumed, first, that the government would be run primarily by Congress and, second, that most domestic functions would be performed at the state level. Over the years, the bureaucracy has grown because the role of government has expanded. The bureaucracy is an essential part of government because it implements policies and programs that are passed by the political branches. As such, it is supposed to be politically neutral. But in the performance of its adminis- trative function, the bureaucracy does perform a policymaking and judicial function.

Because the goal of the Good Government movement was to separate politics from admin - istration, the spoils system, which was tied to politics, was replaced by a career civil service system designed to be immune from popular pressure. This means that politicians cannot remove civil servants and that they have little control over what the bureaucracy does. Presi - dents have been able to exert some control through the executive budgeting process, and Congress has been able to exert some control through the legislative oversight process. Both presidents and Congress have sought to ensure that government is accountable to political officials, who in turn are held accountable by the voters.

The factor that most helps to maintain accountability might be the hierarchical structure of the bureaucracy. Because it is structured on a chain of command and span of control, the bureau - cracy cannot act swiftly. Each action must go through several layers of approval. This system protects Americans’ individual liberty. Presidents have found this to be frustrating and have often sought to circumvent the bureaucracy with appointments of special czars, which enables them to run policy from the White House, rather than from traditional departments. Presidents may have also opted to circumvent the bureaucracy because iron triangles and bureaucratic capture make it more difficult to initiate new programs or terminate old ones. fin82797_06_c06_133-160.indd 156 3/24/16 1:47 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Summary and Resources Key Ideas to Remember • The federal bureaucracy can be viewed as the permanent government whose responsibility it is to execute the nation’s laws. • The bureaucracy is made up of two distinct components: political appointees who are responsible for making policy, and civil servants who are responsible for admin- istering that policy. • American bureaucracy functions according to the principle that those who are responsible for administration should not be subject to popular pressure. • The civil service system is predicated on meritocracy, and the application of scien - tific principles of management arose to replace the spoils system. This was seen to be a step in the direction of efficient and impartial government. • The chain of command in the American bureaucracy, which is often labeled “red tape,” helps ensure accountability and protect individual liberty. Each actor cannot act with - out the approval of his or her respective supervisor up the chain of command. • The American bureaucracy fulfills all the functions of the three branches of Ameri - can government. It effectively makes law by writing rules that appear in the Code of Federal Regulations, it executes laws by implementing them, and it exercises judicial authority by holding administrative legal proceedings when its rules are violated. • There has long been tension between the political branches and the bureaucracy.

Presidents, in particular, have attempted to control the bureaucracy through various budgeting techniques, at times even bypassing the bureaucracy by running opera- tions through czars out of the White House. • Although Congress seeks to control the bureaucracy through legislative oversight, it is often involved in an iron triangle relationship with the bureaucracy and interest groups that benefit from Congress’s delegation of power. • Although a complex society requires an administrative state, Americans generally oppose active government whereby they distrust government and its manifestation in bureaucracy. Questions to Consider 1. What is administrative neutrality, and why is it so important? 2. How did the bureaucracy evolve from a spoils system to the civil service system, and what were the reasons for it? 3. What exactly does the bureaucracy do? 4. If the bureaucracy is, in effect, making policy by plugging in details and performing a judicial function by holding administrative hearings, is the bureaucracy violating the principle of checks and balances? 5. What are the different methods that the political branches can employ to control the bureaucracy? 6. How has the nature of American political culture influenced the design of bureau- cracy and the scope of its authority? 7. Does the appointment of policy czars violate checks and balances? Why or why not? fin82797_06_c06_133-160.indd 157 3/24/16 1:47 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. The Brownlow Committee report, leading to a reorganization of the executive branch, is passed. 1946 Article II of the Constitution is written to include “he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices,” suggesting the presence of a bureacracy.

1787 President Garfeld assassinated by a disgruntled campaign worker expecting a patronage job who did not receive one.

1881 Progressive Era reformers advance the idea that government services should be delivered based on merit.

1890s–1920s The Brownlow Committee report leading to a reorganization of the executive branch is released.

1939 The New Deal period, during which the largest increase in the size of the bureaucracy in U.S.

history occurs.

1933–1945 First three executive branch departments (Treasury, State, War) created by Congress. 1789 Congress passes Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act. 1883 Congress creates Securities and Exchange Commission. 1934 Congress passes Hatch Act prohibiting federal employees from participating in partisan political activity. 1939 1800 2015 Summary and Resources Timeline: Bureaucracy Photo credits (top to bottom): Associated Press, Daniel Grill/Thinkstock, Zoonar/unknown/Zoonar/Thinkstock, Everett Collection/SuperStock, Ninuns/iStock/Thinkstock. The Brownlow Committee report, leading to a reorganization of the executive branch, is passed. 1946 Article II of the Constitution is written to include “he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices,” suggesting the presence of a bureacracy.

1787 President Garfeld assassinated by a disgruntled campaign worker expecting a patronage job who did not receive one.

1881 Progressive Era reformers advance the idea that government services should be delivered based on merit.

1890s–1920s The Brownlow Committee report leading to a reorganization of the executive branch is released.

1939 The New Deal period, during which the largest increase in the size of the bureaucracy in U.S.

history occurs.

1933–1945 First three executive branch departments (Treasury, State, War) created by Congress. 1789 Congress passes Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act. 1883 Congress creates Securities and Exchange Commission. 1934 Congress passes Hatch Act prohibiting federal employees from participating in partisan political activity. 1939 1800 2015 fin82797_06_c06_133-160.indd 158 3/24/16 1:48 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Summary and Resources Key Terms administration The bureaucracy that sup- ports the president, composed of political appointees.

Administrative Procedures Act of 1946 Legislation that governs the way that federal agencies may propose and establish regulations. bureaucracy The division of agencies and departments into sections known as bureaus. bureaucratic capture When agencies are captive to the interests of those they regulate. chain of command A hierarchical structure whereby power and authority flows from the top down to the bottom. Civil Service Commission A body created to oversee and regulate the federal civil service. civil service system Those federal employ - ees who are professionals hired on the basis of merit. cost-benefit analysis Evaluating a program or policy to determine if it is efficient, as evidenced by the benefits outweighing the costs. delegation of authority When Congress grants power and authority to an execu- tive branch department or agency to do something. government corporation A special entity set up by government to achieve a public purpose but that can be independent of government; it relies on government for funding. Hatch Act of 1939 Federal statute that prohibits civil servants from participating in partisan political activity. independent agency An agency that is independent of both the president and Congress. independent regulatory commission A body, like an independent agency, set up to regulate something specific. iron triangle A relationship among mem - bers of Congress (usually committees in Congress), executive branch agencies, and interest groups. line-item budgeting An incremental bud - geting technique. line workers Those workers at the bot - tom of the bureaucratic hierarchy who may represent the face of the bureaucracy to the public. Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act The law that ended the spoils system and ush- ered in the career civil service. planning program budgeting (PPB) A type of budgeting where the budget is orga- nized around specific programs. span of control When bureaucratic author - ity is spread out among several units, with each one performing specific tasks. spoils system The system of staffing the government whereby the party that won office replaced existing bureaucrats with people who voted for their candidate(s). zero-base budgeting (ZBB) A budgeting technique where the budget is organized around “decision packages” that allow politi - cians to make budgeting decisions based on their priorities. fin82797_06_c06_133-160.indd 159 3/24/16 1:48 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution. Summary and Resources Further Reading Fry, B. R., & Raadschelders, J. C. N. (2013). Mastering public administration: From Max Weber to Dwight Waldo (3 rd ed.). Washington, D.C.: CQ Press. Kettl, D. F., & Fesler, J. W. (2011). The politics of the administrative process (5 th ed.). Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.

Lowi, T. J. (2009). The end of liberalism: The second republic of the United States (40 th anniversary ed.). New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Co.

Rourke, F. E. (1984). The presidency and the bureaucracy. In M. Nelson (Ed.), The presidency and the political system (pp. 437–468). Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.

Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. (A. M. Henderson Talcott Parsons, Trans.). New York, NY: Free Press of Glencoe.

Wilson, J. Q. (1991). Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it . New York, NY: Basic Books.

Wilson, W. (1887). The study of administration. Political Science Quarterly, 2(2), 197–222. fin82797_06_c06_133-160.indd 160 3/24/16 1:48 PM \251 2016 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.