Max Weber on Bureaucracy

Question 3 – Max Weber’s ideal-typical conceptualization of the modern bureaucracy

In modern society a bureaucratic structure is considered the most effective way of managing both public and private affairs. This has although not always been the case, and one of the first to describe the emergence and development of bureaucracy was the German sociologist Max Weber. Through his theory of rationalization and subsequent utilization of ideal types he was able to describe this phenomenon on both theoretical and analytical levels. He determined several preconditions for a bureaucratic structure and also described how the rule-bound nature and division of labour were important parts of this. His work has always been subject to much debate, and still remains an important contribution to social scientific research.
Max Weber introduced the use of ”ideal types” in analyzing different socio-economic phenomena. An ideal type is created through an “analytical accentuation of certain elements in reality”. In practice this analytical accentuation draws attention to the most important aspects of a given phenomenon, and leaves out the differentiated factors which vary within different cultural contexts. This “breaking down” of factors can be very difficult, and as Weber states “Sharp differentiation in concrete fact is often impossible, but this makes clarity in the analytical distinction all the more important”. Because of the accentuation and differentiation of facts, Ideal types can be classified as analytical and conceptual constructs, which cannot be found in reality. Nonetheless, the utilization of these ideal types plays a very important role when trying to understand different phenomena in society, both on an empirical and analytical level. First of all, an ideal type creates a stylized example, making it easier to understand and focus attention to selected aspects of a given phenomenon. Secondly the ideal type provides a basis of comparison with the empirically observed reality. It can enhance the understanding of how and why a given phenomenon deviates from the ideal type. This deviation can often be explained by value-related behavior and judgment, which can be difficult to identify without having an ideal type to compare it to. The conceptual tool of ideal types is meant to be entirely free of value-judgments, but even in defining an ideal type, the scientist cannot avoid the fact that his own values influence this definition. Weber recognized this dilemma and stated that the social scientist must “…keep a cool head in the face of the ideals [values] prevailing at the time”.According to Weber there are four ideal-typical types of human social action: traditional, affectual, value-rational and purposive rational. There are also three forms of authority: traditional, charismatic and rational-legal. These cannot be found in their pure form in reality, but they help in obtaining what Weber defines as “Verstehen” (understanding) of social phenomena, which is Weber’s primary goal. The concept of ideal types remains a very important contribution to modern social science. Whereas economic theory focuses mainly on ideal types, the utilization of these in social science has made it possible to take social scientific research one step further. Now, the social scientist can both describe and try to rationally understand the behavior of human beings in different settings.
One of Max Weber’s most famous contributions to social scientific research is his thesis of rationalization. He claims that capitalism is a result of an increased rationalization and modernization in many areas of society such as economy, law and administration. This rationalization can be described as a transition from value-oriented organization and action to goal-oriented organization and action. In other words, it represents a shift from traditional and charismatic authority to legal-rational authority. In Weber’s ideal-typical conceptualizations he describes a completely goal-oriented society. One of the conditions of such a society is bureaucratization. In the Weberian causal chain it can be seen, that the bureaucratic state is one of the “background conditions” for rationalized capitalism. The emergence of bureaucracy can be attributed to the simple fact, that it is the most effective way of rationalizing the political and economic exercise of power. Historically, bureaucratization emerged as a result of an increase in population and the subsequent complexity in managing an empire. The most important factors in order for a kingdom to survive were effective tax-collection and drafting of soldiers for the army. A bureaucratic structure ensured both of these. Today bureaucracy permeates every inch of modern society. Both public institutions and private corporations are managed through an extensive bureaucratic structure. Max Weber’s ideal-typical thesis of bureaucracy can be utilized in order to understand how this structure functions on a theoretic level. The word bureau means desk or office. Bureaucracy therefore means “rule from an office”, which is the main difference between the old feudal societies and the modern society. In the old days the “ruler” enforced the law from horseback accompanied by an army. In the modern bureaucracy the ruler does not have to travel around, but can send directives and orders through a bureau. According to Weber there are six presuppositions which lead to the bureaucratization of a state. First of all the size and space of a population is important. At some point a society will reach a size where personal relationships are no longer sufficient when trying to govern effectively. Secondly an increase in the complexity of tasks being managed calls for a more complex organizational structure. Third, the transition into a money economy with open and free markets makes the ability to perform quick and accurate calculations necessary. Fourth, the development of a communicative infrastructure and technology results in more contact with other states. A reliance on traditional authority is therefore no longer sufficient, as states tread new grounds where “business as usual” is not a possibility. Fifth, the increase in democracy makes the public demand that everybody is treated equally. This can only be realized through a solid and dependable system of rules and regulations. Lastly, the knowledge gained through technological and scientific progress rationalizes the population. The rationalization of the population must be accompanied by a rationalized societal structure. As a consequence of all these factors “bureaucracy offers the attitudes demanded by the external apparatus of modern culture in the most favorable combination”. To ensure that this “favorable combination of attitudes” functions effectively one last precondition must be met, namely the monopoly of violence through police and military. If a state does not have the physical power to enforce the law, the population does not have an incentive to obey it.
As mentioned, the bureaucracy is managed through offices. These offices function on the basis of two equally important components; written rules and laws (the files) and a distinct division of labour (the officials). There are certain preconditions in relation to both the files and the officials which must be fulfilled in an ideal-type bureaucracy. The primary role of the official within the bureaucratic structure is to remain an impersonal and functional communicator of the files. In order to do so, there are a range of conditions which must be met. The business of the office must the primary occupation of the official. To ensure this, the official holds his position for life, which means that he cannot be discharged for personal reasons. The official strives for social esteem, which he is offered with the entrance into a job in an office. His position is secured by a clearly hierarchal system of rank and order, and he has the possibility of achieving a higher rank within the bureaucratic system. He receives a fixed salary and an old-age pension, which gives him security within his job. The official must separate his private activities from his work life. This applies to both the place he works and the assets he works with. By not owning the means of administration he can remain objective towards the tasks he is to carry out. He must also receive thorough training and possess a certification of his qualifications (an education). This training ensures that he has extensive knowledge of the files which he is working with. All in all, entrance into an office is considered acceptance of obligation of faithful management in return for secure existence. This attitude was very important in the early efforts to implement a bureaucratic structure, as it counteracted the previous feudal structure which was regulated by emoluments, personal relations and favors. The files compose another important part of the office. If a bureaucracy is to function effectively there must be written rules and laws that apply both internally and externally. These files secure an “objective discharge of business… a discharge of business according to calculable rules and without regard for persons”. Internally, these files secure that the bureaucratic structure lives up to the conditions listed above. Externally, these files compose the law, and are considered fact. Within the word fact, lays an implicit expectation that the laws are to be regulated abstractly. These facts are the cornerstone of the bureaucratic structure, as everyone is held responsible to the same set of laws. These laws are a guarantee for the objectivity of the official, as Weber puts it, “Equality before the law and the demand for legal guarantees against arbitrariness demand a formal and rational objectivity of administration”.
Today, bureaucracy is a fundamental part of managing democratic states and modern corporations. The technical superiority of the bureaucratic structure is indisputable, which can be seen in the sheer amount and extent of bureaucracies in modern society. In a rationalized (read: capitalistic) society where “survival of the fittest” is a condition of life, bureaucracy is necessary in order to survive. The speed and precision at which a bureaucracy operates cannot be matched by any other structure. The continuity and discretion in the system is another important advantage. Bureaucracy is however not an entirely unproblematic way of organizing activity. The ideal type seems to be free of complications, but Weber recognizes a number of problems related to a bureaucratic structure, which become evident when the ideal type meets reality. The word bureaucracy is sometimes used in a negative way because of the amount of “red tape” and the rule-bound nature of the structure. In some cases it is necessary to manage a problem in accordance to individual concerns and the bureaucratic structure leaves no room for this. This can result in ineffective and slow development. Furthermore, once a bureaucratic structure has been implemented it is almost impossible to reduce its extent. Rules breed more rules and the bureaucracy has a self-perpetuating nature. Even though Max Weber considered some of the drawbacks of bureaucracy in practice, he has received criticism for not focusing enough on these problems. This was although not his primary concern. He focused mainly on establishing an ideal type, which could then be analyzed and interpreted in relation to reality. He accomplished this goal, and it remains an important contribution to the methodological and theoretical tools of social science.

--------------------------------------------
[ 1 ]. Max Weber on the Methodology of the Social Sciences (translation) (Free Press, 1949)
[ 2 ]. Economy And Society, p.214 (Max Weber, Günther Roth, Claus Wittich, 1978)
[ 3 ]. The Max Weber dictionary: Key Words and Central Concepts, p.120 (Richard Swedberg,2005)
[ 4 ]. Accountability in social research: issues and debates, p.55 (Norma R.A Romm, 2001)
[ 5 ]. The Max Weber dictionary: Key Words and Central Concepts, p.120 (Richard Swedberg,2005)
[ 6 ]. A History of Western Thought: From ancient Greece to the twentieth century, p.404 (Gunnar Skirbekk, Niels Gilje, 1972)
[ 7 ]. Weberian sociological theory, p.27 (Randall Collins, 1986)
[ 8 ]. The Social Lens: an invitation to social and sociological theory, p.90 (Kenneth Allan, 1951)
[ 9 ]. Bureaucracy, p.216 (Max Weber, compendium)
[ 10 ]. Bureaucracy, p.199 (Max Weber, compendium)
[ 11 ]. Bureaucracy, p.216 (Max Weber, compendium)
[ 12 ]. Bureaucracy, p.215 (Max Weber, compendium)
[ 13 ]. Bureaucracy, p.220 (Max Weber, compendium)
[ 14 ]. Encyclopedia of social theory volume 1, p.72 (George Ritzer, 1972)
[ 15 ]. Organizational behaviour 2: essential theories of process and structure, p.261 (John B. Miner, 2006)