Question

Choose three Weberian principles of ideal type bureaucracy and critically analyze each of them by indicating at least one proponent and one counterargument. For example, take “hierarchy” principle; and oppose and propose this principle by presenting arguments.

Footnote: This question is about political science. I need the answer of the political science perspective.

Answer 1

Max Weber developed bureaucracy as an ideal type that provides for a structured approach to organizational design. Weber outlined the following three prominent principles of bureaucracy.

1. Formalistic Impersonality

Weber outlined that bureaucracy is a formal organization which have impersonal rules and regulations that are applied similarly to the people based according to rules laid for the decision making in the situation.

Proponent-

This ensures that everybody is treated equally and justice and fairness prevail across the organization.

Opponent-

There are situations where differential treatment is not only desired but necessary, for example racial minorities lagging behind in terms of educational achievements and income parity need differential support from the state.

2. Merit based reward system

Bureaucracy provides for a reward system that is baaed on merit and performance of the office bearers. The person is appointed to an office purely on technical competence and promoted based on performance.

Proponent-

This system helps competent people to reach high position and ensures individual and organizational growth.

Opponent-

Overemphasis on merit and performance ignores the effort of individuals who make attempts to secure greatest public good of greatest number of people.

3. Hierarchical structure

The work in the bureaucracy is arranged in a top down manner i.e. information flows from bottom to top and orders flow from top to bottom.

Proponent-

This ensures strict discipline in the organization and maintains adherence to standards.

Opponent-

This rigid structure may impede free flow and exchange of ideas and information. This also negates the scope for debate and discussion.