Bureaucracy in Public Service

As Weber noniced nearly a century ago, with the rationalization of society, bureaucratism becomes inevitable (Weber, 1968/1921) and in the contemporary society, bureaucracy whether private or creation is ubiquitous. Without it, few of the routine features of our modern society would be possible the collection of taxes and the production and distribution of goods and run, for example, would be difficult, if not impossible. (Dandeker, 1990) Bureaucracies manoeuver people by replacing human judgement with nonhuman technology, thus creating a formalistic im individualisedity of the system.Even bureaucracy itself can be seen as a spacious nonhuman technology that functions more or less automatically. Rules, regulations, and institutional structures replace the adaptability of human decisions, that is, employees of bureaucratic organizations gen date of referencelly follow the rules and regulations in a predetermined age instead of evaluating each case separately. They must get th eir jobs d bingle in a certain way by a certain time without mistakes, and the division of informal systems of human action is diminished by the highly formalized structures.Bureaucracy controls not and employees of an organization but her clients as well. An organization provides proceedss and one must apply for the services on a specific form by a specific date. One will receive those services only in a certain way and under strict conditions. (Ritzer, 1998) Client categories used by organizations decide what info a client is supposed to provide, and this information will generate a denial or a grant of a specific requested service. Snellen, 1998) Although bureaucracy is present in both semipublic and private organizations, there are large differences mingled with the two types of organizations and the services they deliver. The first difference is the monopolistic parting of public organizations, i. e. , often a citizen does not have a choice between different public organ izations (as is the case with private organizations) because there is only one public organization that provides a busy service. A second difference is that a citizen is not always a voluntary client of public organizations because the nation state is responsible for the collective goods.Public services will thus not only increase personal benefits and rights, but will also consist of activities that address the duties of citizens (e. g. , tax collection). Third, citizens have a spokesperson in the determination of public service delivery through voting, referenda, and public hearings. (Lips, 1998) The citizen (as citoyen, carrier of democratic rights) enters into debates with political-administrative organizations. When consensus has been established, politicians instruct the public organizations who execute these instructions.The citizen (now as client) uses the services provided by public organizations. (Zuurmond, 1996a Zuurmond, 1996b) Fourth, public services are subject to sp ecific norms and values, like legitimacy, legal certainty and equality of rights, as a consequence of the governments responsibility for the collective good. This results in the fifth difference between public and private services continuity in the deliverance of services to citizens and accessibility of public services to all citizens ought to be more important goals for public services than gaining profits.The services provided to the citizen (as client of public organizations) thus have a different character than the services provided to the customer (as client of private organizations). The thought process of the citizen as client is not an old view. A few decades ago, the political process of determining the worry of government (i. e. , determination of public products, services, and information provided to citizens) was perceived as the most important part of the public service delivery.The dominant centralize was on the supplier- emplacement of public service delivery the government knew what was best for their citizens and the government decided what way and form of service provision was most appropriate to address these citizens. This focus shifted gradually to the production and delivery of public goods, services, and information. Standards like efficiency and effectiveness were introduced in public organizations and the functioning of the public organization became most important.During this period, the view of the citizen as a client of public organizations came into being. (Lips, 1998) Recently, the focus shifted to the feedback of citizens on both wanted and received public products, services, and information. This is at least the case in the Netherlands (Lips, 1998), but it is probable to apply to other national governments as well. Where the governments attitude initially was we know what is good for you, it has changed to let us know what is good for you.This view is a result of increased attention to the spending of administrative organi zations, and standards like efficiency and effectiveness have played a role as well. Also, concepts and methods with prove success in the private sector, like pull offment, budgeting, marketing, but also service delivery itself, have been introduced in the public sector. This requires changes in the organization of public service provision. Governments perceive information and communication technologies (ICTs) as an important means to realize these changes.ICT applications in public service delivery potentially bring about not only increased effectiveness, increased efficiency, an improved client-orientation, and a reduction of cost, but also an improved comprehensiveness of information processes of public service delivery between government and the citizen. (Lips, 1998) The efforts of public organizations to administer to each of many citizens their precise due in terms of the organizational treatments they deserve, results in a bulk of demands for personal information. Rule, McA dam, Stearns, & Uglow, 1980) The large quantity of personal information does not take place solely for the benefit of the clients, but for the benefit of the organizations as well, for organizations are trying to manage risks by gathering personal information in order to establish the kind of person they are dealing with (Lyon, 2001). Today, one of the most obvious indicators of the pervasiveness of bureaucracy is the massive expansion of the personal information which is held by a range of public and private organizations. As Dandeker (1990) stated strikingly, the age of bureaucracy is also the era of the information society