A Discussion About Bureaucracy

A Discussion About Bureaucracy
With yet another government shutdown, and the fact that right now (and for the foreseeable future) I am a bureaucrat, I thought I’d share a few thoughts on the profession that covers my criticisms, praises, and a few other tidbits.

Of course, as is usual for my posts the first thing to do is DEFINE what the bureaucracy is. For the sake of communication, I’ll be using two similar, but distinct terms:

Bureaucrat/Bureaucracy: Any government employee who is not elected. This is a very broad definition that includes everything from police, to auditors, to military, to social workers. Even teachers, the people fixing our roads, and postal workers count.

Administrators/Administration: This covers the more traditional “bureaucrats” of white-collar, office workers who deal with the paperwork (red tape), regulations (rules), and other office-type functions.

The bureaucracy at its essence is meant to implement government. Let’s take Trump’s wall as an example. He will not build it nor will anyone in Congress. That’s not their job. Should it be funded and approved, the bureaucracy will build it. Administrators will put it out to bid (or likely several bids for different aspects and locations of the wall) to contractors, will do the accounting, deal with any legal matters such as land use and ownership, international agreements with Mexico, environmental impacts, etc. They will handle the logistics of transportation, procuring materials, human resources to oversee and support those who construct the wall, and so on. If done correctly, there will also be people monitoring and evaluating the project to ensure that nothing is amiss and things go on schedule. Engineers, architects, builders, electricians, security personnel, lawyers, drivers, heavy equipment operators, and office personnel are just a handful of the roles needed to make policy a reality.

The Underlying Challenges

Bureaucracy is not democracy. As someone who did my Masters in Public Administration, that is working as a bureaucrat (and administrator) on the local level, I will be one of the first to admit that bureaucrats are not inherently representative of the people. That’s not to say that bureaucrats are inherently against the public’s will, only that we work off of a different set of priorities. Bureaucrats have their agency/government’s mission, they have their assigned roles, they have their expertise/research.

As an example, an Environmentalist working for the EPA is going to be working under the agency’s mission of environmental protection, the project/programs they’ve been assigned, and whatever findings/conclusions they make based off of their education and what they find in the field. A police officer has their mission to serve and protect, they have their jurisdiction, they have their training/evaluation of the moment to decide what to do. The public’s sway over these bureaucrats is indirect. The EPA gains more or less funding through Congress, policies are changed by the political-appointee Secretary. The public elects officials who will then change the laws that police officers enforce. However, there is no vote of the people on what the environmentalist is going to include in his climate change report, nor is there ballot for people to decide if the police officer will give someone a ticket or if she’ll give them a warning. It wouldn’t be efficient, and in many cases we prefer to rely on the expert/bureaucrat to do their job objectively despite public opinion.

The government cannot be avoided. Whereas politicians can be voted in and out, the public has less at their disposal to deal with bureaucrats and can feel powerless. This is exacerbated by the fact that bureaucrats do their respective job for a living. The Planner lives and breathes land use, zoning, building applications. The Clerk has easy access to local ordinances and the Town Charter. The Department of Transportation has access to charts, graphs, numbers, budgets, maps, and far more. It’s an imbalance of power so when someone wants to build something the Planner says doesn’t comply with current zoning, when the Clerk tells the home owner that the grass in their yard is too high, when the project manager says that the bridge has to be put in a certain location despite local complaints, it’s a tough position for the citizen(s). Of course, that’s where politicians come in, and citizens can leverage the politicians who in turn can direct the bureaucrats. However, in those cases it’s the politicians who saved the day, the bureaucrats the foe that was stopped.

For the most part, bureaucrats DEAL WITH PROBLEMS. There’s a pot hole. There is crime. There is a fire. The air isn’t clean enough. A foreign power has declared war on us. Therefore, when bureaucrats do their job, life goes on as usual and the problem goes unnoticed. When they don’t do their job, or when they are needed, we see the inconvenience however large or small clearly.

All of the above applies to the best of circumstances. The most benevolent, brilliant, effective bureaucracy must contend with its undemocratic, power-differential, inconveniently visible nature, all of which create understandable friction with the greater public. As is a trend with my posts, we don’t live in the best of circumstances and human and institutional flaws add onto the problems of bureaucracy.

The Criticisms

The last section, despite listing hardships, are not criticisms. I feel they are necessary and mostly unavoidable obstacles. Here though I’ll list out what (from my brief experience) are things that in general I find bureaucratic culture could improve on. This of course doesn’t characterize every agency, every town, every person, but are things I’ve seen common enough to see a trend.

1)      The Desire to be Understood before Understanding: Bureaucrats, despite rumors, really are just people. Just as every day citizens struggle to communicate with bureaucrats the nuance of their situation, how the study is missing something only locals know about, so too do bureaucrats struggle to communicate how they’ve really tried to find a viable alternative, and how the consequences of not doing a project or program will be more harmful than it appears on the surface level. I took a training last year specifically on how to work with the public on public projects, and when asked what their main reason was being there, over half of the administrators in attendance stated “to help the public understand them”.

As an alternative, as bureaucrats I think we’re in a better position to understand first. Listen before we speak, hear what the citizens say before we put the final signature in a report. This is often easier said than done, but one that can go a long way in building trust.

2)       Intellectual Arrogance: Bureaucrats, and administrators in particular, do have a bad habit of thinking just because we are the expert that means we’re right. In many cases it’s true, but not always, and even if we are that doesn’t mean that citizens don’t have ideas of tweaks or small changes that can’t be used. And as stated before, expertise is not democracy, it is one piece of the puzzle. It is all right if the people choose a less efficient, more culturally acceptable solution now and then.

As an alternative, I think being “one piece of the puzzle” is a better mindset. As an example, one of my projects is to research municipal broadband for my small town, to see what options exist, their costs, their benefits, etc. Rather than see this as my project to decide what the town will do, it is my job to give them the best information so they can make an informed decision.

3)       Assumption of Objectivity: As mentioned above, we most of the time want our bureaucrats to be objective. It helps to have at least a degree of fairness and predictability in our institutions. However, from my experience is that this objectivity is far too often assumed, believed to be inherent when it is not. We live in a complicated world and certain “objective” standards will have unintended subjective consequences. Gentrification is probably the most famous example, where standards like high crime and low economic output are used as an excuse to drive current residents out and rebuild anew with little if any regard to other factors like race, poverty, and social status. So too do we often withhold help to rural, less-dense population areas for more concentrated-urban development when the former may actually have the greater need.

My alternative is to recognize and accept that some level of subjective decision-making exists in our work no matter how hard we try otherwise, and to be honest in pointing it out. To take it a step forward, I’d also encourage being willing to look and see whether the subjective decisions and assumptions in any given project, program, or policy can be mitigated or even resolved.

The Praise

1.       Solving Problems: As stated above, the bureaucracy is meant to solve problems even though its reputation is the opposite. Let’s look at a few classic examples.

The IRS is many people’s least favorite agency as it deals with most of our least favorite interaction with government; paying taxes. We watch on as a large chunk of our paycheck each pay period gets removed and thrown into the ether of government save for social security and medicare that get listed specifically when taken from us. However, someone has to collect taxes. Someone has to ensure that the government is funded. Whether we agree with all government expenditures or not, the IRS is the agency that fixes the problem of taking citizen’s money so that it can go into roads, traffic signals, clean water, and yes, even that program you disagree with.

The DMV is notorious for long lines, lots of paperwork, and overall just being frustrating in general. However, vehicles are both the source of many needs in our society as well as many problems. Driver’s licenses are our most common form of identification, it is crucial to law enforcement, there are environmental concerns, we  want mechanisms to deal with unsafe drivers.

Whether we agree with the existence of the EPA, SOMEONE should be ensuring that our rivers aren’t poisoned. Whether we think the Department of Energy should exist, we need to keep an eye on nuclear power. Even if we say that Education is a state matter, it is still to state bureaucrats to help educate our children. These aren’t profit-making activities for the private sector to grow off of, and I do praise bureaucrats for taking the problems on.

2.       Choosing the Best, Imperfect Solution: Whatever level of government, whatever size or scope of the work, there will be those who are helped and hurt. The new road pattern that will save a million drivers 15-30 minutes on their commute will force a handful of business no longer easily accessed to move or close down. The program that will help thousands of people get back on their feet will be an extra tax burden on those who don’t. And of course, there’s all of those NIMBY (not in my back yard) issues such as where to put a prison, chicken farm, industrial park, and other vital but not attractive services and institutions.

There are no perfect solutions, and I commend other administrators for making (and hopefully owning up to) those hard choices. Someone has to make them, because no decision holds just as many consequences if not more.

3.       Citizens instead of Customers: Citizens are not the same as customers. Customers can be gained and lost, there is a more natural relationship of a mutual exchange. The customer wants something and pays a price for the good or service. Government isn’t so clear cut. Unhappy people are still citizens. People who hold fundamental differences with an agency’s mission are still citizens. People are citizens by mandate, and it creates a much different dynamic.

This is not to suggest it is superior over private sector priorities with customers, only that I recognize and appreciate that the bureaucrats and administrators don’t look to fill a niche, but instead look to serve all the people, at least in theory.

The Point

This is less about trying to drive home a specific point, and more to share a few of my experiences, observations, and opinions to hopefully fill in some holes. I think at a time when at least Federal bureaucrats are political bargaining chips (regardless of who you want to blame), it can only help to share more about who these professionals are, and what purpose they serve.

***

ACTION!

Honestly, I’ll be content if anyone who reads this can think twice before believing the bureaucracy is just red tape meant to stifle good people. There are many, many legitimate criticisms, but recognizing the functions they perform (or at least are supposed to perform) can make our critiques more focused and useful than shut this agency down or that agency down.

***

What’s Next?

I’ll be working on describing my cross-cultural relationship to my now-fiancee, discussing some of the things that I think does add onto the already-complicated-dynamics of a relationship. I might do a re-write on earlier posts I made about how I feel we handle racism in America since some things have changed (and many other things haven’t). One other idea I’m toying with is applying the 10 Strategies of Political and Social Conversations I’ve done to some of the current debates, to see how they hold up.