The Bureaucracy Problem

[Valin]

National Affairs:

Originally published in the Winter 1967 issue, this essay was Wilson's first extended public meditation on the question of bureaucracy, which was to become one of his foremost interests.

James Q. Wilson

Spring 2012

 

The federal bureaucracy, whose growth and problems were once only the concern of the right, has now become a major concern of the left, the center, and almost all points in between. Conservatives once feared that a powerful bureaucracy would work a social revolution. The left now fears that this same bureaucracy is working a conservative reaction. And the center fears that the bureaucracy isn't working at all.

 

Increasing federal power has always been seen by conservatives in terms of increasing bureaucratic power. If greater federal power merely meant, say, greater uniformity in government relations — standardized trucking regulations, for example, or uniform professional licensing practices — a substantial segment of American businessmen would probably be pleased. But growing federal power means increased discretion vested in appointive officials whose behavior can neither be anticipated nor controlled. The behavior of state and local bureaucrats, by contrast, can often be anticipated because it can be controlled by businessmen and others.

 

(Snip)

 

Both the White House and the Congress seem eager to do something about the bureaucracy problem. All too often, however, the problem is described in terms of "digesting" the "glut" of new federal programs — as if solving administrative difficulties had something in common with treating heartburn. Perhaps those seriously concerned with this issue will put themselves on notice that they ought not to begin with the pain and reach for some administrative bicarbonate of soda; they ought instead to begin with what was swallowed and ask whether an emetic is necessary. Coping with the bureaucracy problem is inseparable from rethinking the objectives of the programs in question. Administrative reshuffling, budgetary cuts (or budgetary increases), and congressional investigation of lower-level boondoggling will not suffice and are likely, unless there are some happy accidents, to make matters worse. Thinking clearly about goals is a tough assignment for a political system that has been held together in great part by compromise, ambiguity, and contradiction. And if a choice must be made, any reasonable person would, I think, prefer the system to the clarity. But now that we have decided to intervene in such a wide range of human affairs, perhaps we ought to reassess that particular tradeoff.