Federal Bureaucracy Blog

The Federal bureaucracy with its workers bees, queen, and drones, collectively called bureaucrats, are the focus of countless jokes, cynical digs, and political smears. This is in no small way due to the horror stories that many citizens can readily recount of their experiences in dealings with them. What does the vast universe of federal agencies with all their regulations, procedures, forms, committees, middle managers, computers, schedules, and file drawers have to do with the maintenance and advancement of democracy? The answer is that it has a great deal to do with it - for better and for worse. Federal bureaucracies are "the implementers of policy" as directed by Congress and the President. "They develop procedures and rules for implementing policy goals." (p. 480 Government in America) In fact they make our increasingly complex society and our brand of democracy function - but not easily and not without controversy.
Take for example the U.S. Department of Education. The overview on their web site states: "ED administers programs authorized and funded by Congress. These programs provide financial aid for eligible applicants for elementary, secondary, and college education; for the education of individuals with disabilities and of those who are illiterate, disadvantaged, or gifted; and for the education of immigrants, American Indians, and people with limited English proficiency." This is no small set of tasks. Yet Congress and the President are, from time to time, quite willing to pile on additional tasks – sometimes beyond the department’s ability to satisfy, such as with the "No Child Left Behind" program. This was a major initiative of President George W. Busch in the first term of his presidency. It was launched in 2001 with lofty objectives and billions of dollars but after 7 years its effectiveness remains debatable. Thus, as is written, "Congress is fond of stating a broad policy goal in legislation and then leaving implementation up to the bureaucracies. Members of Congress can thus escape messy details, and place blame for the implementation decisions elsewhere." (p.481, Government in America).
Part of the problem with American bureaucracies is that no one anticipated the evolution that would take place that turned what seemed like simple mandates and necessities into a complex system of interconnectedness of objectives, strategies, tactics, and regulations. "The system was created by Congress layer on top of layer, with little regard to how it should work as a whole." (pg. 466 Government in America). As the United States grows, so does the government, and thus, so do the bureaucracies. Congress of the past deserves much of the blame for the current complicated state of the bureaucratic system we face today and today’s Congress is doing little or nothing to fix the problem, continuing with essentially the same procedures they have always employed. "Congress typically announces the goals of the policy in broad terms, sets up an administrative apparatus, and leaves the bureaucracy the task of working out the details of the program. In other words, the bureaucracy is left to implement the program." (pg. 480 Government in Action). Basically, "agencies are given the responsibility of making concrete decisions carrying out vague policy initiated in Congress or by the President. The agencies can offer expert advice, closely attuned to the policies that the legislative and executive recommend in the first place, but also decisively affect the policy-making process." (Woll Document 52, pg. 308). This lack of clarity and at times, lack of research into the effectiveness of the policies on the part of Congress when assigning tasks and policies to be implemented only adds to the workload of the bureaucracy. When Congress does not resolve a policy challenge itself and merely conveys it to a federal agency to figure out and implement, it is even more unlikely that the result will become effective policy as apparently is the case with the "No Child Left Behind" program administered by the US Department of Education.
Because "the Constitution does not explicitly provide fore the administrative branch, which has become the new fourth branch of government," the management, and thus the disposition is vague at times, for "this raises the question of how to control the bureaucracy when there are no clear constitutional limits upon it." (Woll Document 52, pg. 309). This ambiguous action of the Founding Fathers raises two basic questions. First, what are the limitations of the "bureaucratic branch"? And second, what are the limits (or requirements) of democratic participation in the goings-on of the bureaucracy? Despite the actions of the Founding Fathers, "the bureaucracy must be accommodated within the framework of our system of constitutional democracy." Whether they planned it or not, the organization they designed assigned a role to Congress that granted Congress a great deal of authority over the administrative process." (Woll Document 52 pg. 309). Even compared to the President, "Congress retains primary control over the organization of the bureaucracy." Congress alone possesses the power to create and destroy agencies and determine "whether they are to be located within the Executive Branch or outside of it. This has enabled Congress to create a large number of independent agencies beyond presidential control." (Woll Document 52, pg.310).
Most bureaucracies were begun with good intentions and are well meaning as the "No Child Left Behind" program. But they are much too constructed by excessive rules and regulations, overlapping jurisdictions, abundant red tape, extravagant procedures, and overabundant authority to do a job effectively. The system of appeals, legal complexities, administrative routines, budgets, overlapping agency domains, etc. leads to a pitiful arrangement of disarray. However, the truism remains: "Bureaucracies may be inefficient at times, but no one has found a substitute for them." (page 469, Government in America). Unfortunately, the United States cannot subsist with the federal bureaucracy, for this unofficial "fourth branch" is essential to the smooth running of America, however contradictory that may sound. The federal bureaucracy as room for the considerable amount of improvement needed, which would be the smoothing of the system to make it more accessible and understandable to the average citizen, as well as streamline the efficiency and the work undertaken by it.
There are several arguments explaining why our bureaucratic system of administration does not evolve in a more positive way. It is mainly due to the fact that "it is difficult to coordinate so many different agencies, especially when they lack a history of trust and cooperation." (pg. 488, Government in America). Congressional committees, often known for being power-hungry, do not want to lose jurisdiction over their agencies if merging were to take place. Specific interest groups that are affected by the agency do not want to lose or compromise the relationships they’ve built with "their agencies" if they were to become immersed. Lastly, the agencies themselves are against being submerged within a larger bureaucratic entity and "the three branches of government are not willing to give up what powers they may have over administrative agencies." (Woll Document 52 pg. 312).
It is without doubt that a streamlining and restructuring of the administrative system is an absolute necessity as our society and system of governance evolves into even more complexity framework. At very least, the responsibility for the implementation and administration of specific programs should be concentrated rather then diffused across multiple agencies and branches. The proliferation of regulations must also be reduced and simplified. But given the historic entrenchment of our bureaucratic system and the gargantuan tasks that have been assigned to them to fulfill, it all seems unlikely.