Authority and Power in Bureaucratic and Patrimonial Administration: A Revisionist Interpretation of Weber on Bureaucracy

Abstract

Weber's understanding of bureaucracy, despite substantial qualification and revision, remains the dominant paradigm for the study of administration and formal organizations. We continue the process of revision by accepting his ideal-typical concepts of bureaucratic and patrimonial administration, but subject them to theoretical and historical reinterpretation and application. Our reading of historical change as it relates to bureaucracy leads us to question Weber's interpretations. His conceptualization of bureaucracy in terms of rational-legal-authority and formal rationality fails to take account of the existence and use of power within and outside of organizations, and of the persistence of patrimonial features. The use of power produces conflict and pathologies. When these serve the legitimate values and interests of participants and actors in the organizational environment, they can have benign consequences. The persistence of patrimonial features, rather than signalling the survival of dysfunctional atavisms, can promote administrative effectiveness by mitigating conflict and promoting organizational loyalty, discipline, and efficiency.

Democratisation and the prospects for participatory regionalism in Southeast Asia

“…Peter Katzenstein (1997) has drawn a link between the non-Weberian (non legal-rational) nature of domestic political structures in Asia and the informal and underinstitutionalised form of its regional institutions, especially ASEAN. For other discussions of 'patrimonial authority' in domestic politics, see Rudolph & Rudolph (1979); and Theobald (1982). 4 This included S Rajaratnam, Singapore's retired foreign minister and a founder of ASEAN.…”

Did Max Weber's Agony and Ecstasy Influence His Scholarship?

“…Most attention has been focused on his ideal type of bureaucracy. A good example of how this ideal type has been stereotyped when disconnected from Weber's concrete historical analysis is Rudolph and Rudolph's (1979, 202) agreement with Geertz's comment that the ideal type is a model of and for reality (for a critique of how Weber's ideas are distorted, see Badie and Birnbaum 1983, 23; Mayntz 19656). Also, he never suggested, as is often charged, that bureaucracy was efficient as such, merely that it was more efficient in comparison to other types of rulership, “red tape” notwithstanding (Weber 2009, 343 n. 30).…”

References

“…In particular, we should not put too much emphasis on formality as a defining attribute of any given administrative structure. Akin to the synergy between some clientelistic practices and democracy, impromptu management and rulebending are at times indispensable to the running of a formal bureaucratic organization (Rudolph and Rudolph 1979). (We explore this ticklish issue further in the next section on the benefits and drawbacks of institutional dualism).…”